These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Inspiration
#661 - 2012-07-23 08:55:39 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Inspiration wrote:
After seeing stuff like this in a public database, you you really expect that the moons in those system you do not see listed are all valuable? I wouldn't think so!


If you honestly believe that dotlan's moon data is accurate, I don't know what to tell you.


Every moon i double checked years ago was correct, its a good start. As for hostile alliance space, just scan the mining towers they have, ignore all else and you get the good picture rather quick, all hard effort will be done for you by your enemy.

So it is not an issue at all that not every single noob can publicly see where the best moons are in all of EVE. Simply because they can;t do anything with it anyway!

I am serious!

Inspiration
#662 - 2012-07-23 09:05:07 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Dr 0wnage wrote:
I see the logic behind this, but its still a reaction to the symptoms and not the problem itself. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt however as you say the real solution in coming.

Personally, i would like to see depleting moons with random spawns of new materials. Give all moons a finite amount of resources, and when depleted, they would respawn somewhere else in new eden. This should be quite simple to implement and would solve nearly all of our current moongoo problems.

-Rare goo being confined to one part of space would be solved by random seeding.
-Rare goo being controlled by only the largest alliances would be largely solved by the unknown locations of new goo deposits.

This system could allow WH systems to produce goo as well making moon surveying in unknown space a profession.

Adjusting respawn consistency and amounts would allow ccp to somewhat adjust the supply of goo for when asteroid belt mining is implemented.

I simply don't see any downsides to this idea...


Random moonshifts just discourage spaceholding and territorial conquest and generally make 0.0 irritating for everyone out there.


Use your imagination!

Random moonshifts and depletion and that sort of stuff can be implemented without influence on territorial warfare. It will change however the passive nature of moon mining into an active one (no longer with towers)

And the scanning mechanism can work just like with exploration, and you could enhance systems you control. It wouldn't be totally random either, an area rich in X will keep rich in X, just need to find the details. Other regions will have smaller amount of X too now and then, but with less chance to find it.

Everyone happy!

Most scanning is done already anyways, in search of combat anomalies. So is it all nothing new, but much better then static moon mining with towers!

I am serious!

Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#663 - 2012-07-23 09:09:11 UTC
Inspiration wrote:


Most scanning is done already anyways, in search of combat anomalies.


What, no its not, its an entirely different probe type and process

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#664 - 2012-07-23 10:00:57 UTC
Inspiration wrote:
Every moon i double checked years ago was correct, its a good start. As for hostile alliance space, just scan the mining towers they have, ignore all else and you get the good picture rather quick, all hard effort will be done for you by your enemy.

I guess that's why, when we scanned our area, we found tons of tech moons which weren't towered and weren't on dotlan?

Inspiration wrote:
So it is not an issue at all that not every single noob can publicly see where the best moons are in all of EVE. Simply because they can;t do anything with it anyway!

I love how you assume that the dotlan information is accurate. It's so cute.

Inspiration wrote:
Random moonshifts and depletion and that sort of stuff can be implemented without influence on territorial warfare. It will change however the passive nature of moon mining into an active one (no longer with towers)

So why should I bother going to war for any particular space, when all I have to do is hold tons of currently worthless space and see where the lottery takes me?

Inspiration wrote:
And the scanning mechanism can work just like with exploration, and you could enhance systems you control. It wouldn't be totally random either, an area rich in X will keep rich in X, just need to find the details. Other regions will have smaller amount of X too now and then, but with less chance to find it.

You're missing the whole downtime which'll happen, how much time is going to be spent tearing down POSes all over the place, what'll happen when JB towers happen to be on the new tech (or whatever it is) moon, what happens if someone's reaction or component manufacturing or supercap manufacturing POS etc etc etc is on the moon.

And this is before we even start talking about the act of actually finding the things, and you're also completely ignoring the fact that with this dynamic system there is absolutely no incentive at all to even contemplate trying to take someone's moneymoons (or even go to war over them). It's easier to just take a fuckload of space and wait.

Inspiration wrote:
Everyone happy!

Except everyone who has to run around scanning moons all day long, everyone who has to pay the people to scan moons, everyone who has to shuffle towers around, and last but not least everyone who has to pay for both the scanning of moons, moving of POSes and the downtime before new moons are found with ... higher prices for moongoo.

But hey, if you absolutely want to make T2 even harder to run around in, go right ahead, don't let me stop you.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#665 - 2012-07-23 13:13:56 UTC
The alchemy reactions should require inputs from Planetary Interaction, plus a bit of minerals from regular mining.

Mix it up a little, pull in materials from other sources.
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#666 - 2012-07-23 14:04:38 UTC
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
The alchemy reactions should require inputs from Planetary Interaction, plus a bit of minerals from regular mining.

Mix it up a little, pull in materials from other sources.

While the reactions themselves do not require any materials from other sources, the fuel for the towers requires PI and ice products and PI products are used in a lot of T2 manufacturing. So while you may not see PI products in any reaction recipes, they're still a significant part of T2 production.

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Sigras
Conglomo
#667 - 2012-07-23 16:12:25 UTC
I think everyone who is touting moon depletion/moon shifting is forgetting 2 things:

#1. How much of a pain it is to scan moons - For a large alliance, they may control thousands of moons, even if the moon materials only ever respawned at downtime, that means that every moon would have to be re-scaned every day.

#2. Knowing where the moon mats are keeps material prices low - This example is obviously extreme, but imagine if tomorrow, all of the moon materials disappeared and were randomly reseeded on different moons. the price of T2 would go through the roof because most of the moons wouldnt be scanned for weeks!

Right now, basically any moon that is worth mining is being mined, and the only other factor effecting the prices is carteling. If moons were randomly reseeded, you would have the chance that some of the moons with critical materials like tech on them dont get scanned for weeks or months! That would be months of non production on top of all the other market factors.

TL;DR
Random reseeds of moon materials would make the situation worse not better.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#668 - 2012-07-23 16:51:32 UTC
Hi everyone. I wanted to thank all of you who are giving feedback on these changes. I'm reading every single post here and every blog I can find on the topic.

Special thanks to Akita T and everyone else who have posted their calculations on the potential results of these changes on the market. No better way to get my math double checked than to have experienced market gurus posting theirs.

We've now announced the release date for Inferno 1.2 so I can go ahead and let you all know that this first round of changes goes live on August 8th.

Happy posting!

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#669 - 2012-07-23 18:16:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Kusum Fawn
I still hope you will change it to something other then cobalt. like a combination of all the r2's or something.

or redistribute them evenly ....

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
Lorna Sicling
Eire Engineers
Pandemic Horde
#670 - 2012-07-23 19:29:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Lorna Sicling
Congratulations on the first Dev Blog - you were given a difficult topic to cover for sure!

I've also run some calculations, and although the activity is profitable, I'm just concerned that at the moment it's simply not going to produce the volumes to allow good levels of competition with OTEC (one of the members of which are actually my landlord!!).

I may however end up setting up a tower or two "just because", as I use far too many nanotransistors each month and the idea of making them myself without having to have a tech moon is rather appealing. The quantities would be more of a hobby production rather than the level I'm used to though.

Still, small steps first. I can't wait to see what follows on from this.

EDIT
Ack - so after a tiny amount of time, and checking current market prices, OTEC have nerfed this already. Not good and very disappointing.

Industrialist - currently renting in null sec.

Writer of the blog "A Scientist's Life in Eve" - proud member of the Eve Blog Pack
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#671 - 2012-07-23 20:53:21 UTC
Inspiration wrote:

Every moon i double checked years ago was correct, its a good start. As for hostile alliance space, just scan the mining towers they have, ignore all else and you get the good picture rather quick, all hard effort will be done for you by your enemy.

dotlan is "mostly" correct in that its junk moons are generally accurate while full of lies when it comes to highends

i would know, i had several regions scanned and compared to tech moon lists on dotlan: dotlan, unsuprisingly, was highly inaccurate when it came to tech moons

it is generally accurate if it says a moon is a tech moon, but the fact it says a moon isn't one isn't terribly reliable
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#672 - 2012-07-23 21:03:02 UTC
also while "just scan all mined moons" is generally a good way to spot moons that the current owner lied about, some get lost when regions change hands. it is therefore not a reliable way to scan a region, though it makes an excellent first start
Katalci
Kismesis
#673 - 2012-07-23 21:52:00 UTC
Samuella IV wrote:
Why cannot we use POS to harvest moon inside wormhole system ? These moons looks exactly the same.... Where is the sense, realism and logic to it ?

No! No, no no! This simply would not work -- while it's fun to think of some small wormhole corp quietly mining their secret tech moon, it would very quickly be found by some big blob alliance scout, invaded, and ruined. The natural mass limits can easily be avoided.
Alxea
Unstable Pirate Sharks Of The Damed Sea
#674 - 2012-07-23 23:52:36 UTC
Makari Aeron wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Wocka Wocka!

Remember that if you like this change you should hit the "like" button on this post. I need to know if this is the kind of work the community is looking for. ;)


This isn't facebook..... :|

Welcome to FaceEve! Straight
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#675 - 2012-07-24 16:05:07 UTC
Hello everyone!

It's been good to see the reaction to these changes, especially as the feedback has fit very well with the models we had coming into this blog.
After evaluating the market reactions and the estimates from experienced players we now feel comfortable accelerating our planned implementation these reactions. We're going to have them start at 10/1 ratios and re-evaluate from there.

New versions of the reactions are:

- 100 Titanium + 100 Vanadium -> 1 Unrefined Vanadium Hafnite -> 20 Vanadium Hafnite +  90 Vanadium
- 100 Cobalt + 100 Platinum -> 1 Unrefined Platinum Technite -> 20 Platinum Technite + 90 Platinum
- 100 Scandium + 100 Chromium -> 1 Unrefined Solerium -> 20 Solerium + 90 Chromium
- 100 Scandium + 100 Cadmium -> 1 Unrefined Caesarium Cadmide -> 20 Caesarium Cadmide + 90 Cadmium

- 100 Evaporite Deposits + 100 Atmospheric Gases -> 1 Unrefined Hexite -> 20 Hexite

- 100 Atmospheric Gases + 100 Tungsten -> 1 Unrefined Rolled Tungsten Alloy -> 20 Rolled Tungsten Alloy + 90 Tungsten 
- 100 Evaporite Deposits + 100 Titanium -> 1 Unrefined Titanium Chromide -> 20 Titanium Chromide + 90 Titanium
- 100 Hydrocarbons + 100 Scandium -> 1 Unrefined Fernite Alloy-> 20 Fernite Alloy + 90 Scandium
- 100 Silicates + 100 Cobalt -> 1 Unrefined Crystallite Alloy -> 20 Crystallite Alloy + 90 Cobalt

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#676 - 2012-07-24 16:28:29 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hello everyone!

It's been good to see the reaction to these changes, especially as the feedback has fit very well with the models we had coming into this blog.
After evaluating the market reactions and the estimates from experienced players we now feel comfortable accelerating our planned implementation these reactions. We're going to have them start at 10/1 ratios and re-evaluate from there.

What tech price are you shooting for with these changes?
Dramaticus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#677 - 2012-07-24 16:29:43 UTC
EvilweaselSA wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hello everyone!

It's been good to see the reaction to these changes, especially as the feedback has fit very well with the models we had coming into this blog.
After evaluating the market reactions and the estimates from experienced players we now feel comfortable accelerating our planned implementation these reactions. We're going to have them start at 10/1 ratios and re-evaluate from there.

What tech price are you shooting for with these changes?


Fuel cost!

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
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#678 - 2012-07-24 16:32:47 UTC
Basically, I'm concerned that you relied on Akita T's analysis because it was seriously flawed in several ways:

1)Akita T assumed you'd buy cobalt from the market. This is not the case. You'd mine it, and consider it effectively free.
2)Akita T assumed current prices (as people were madly speculating on them) were accurate. They weren't: platinum was being speculated on (for no good reason) and cobalt was as well (being wildly overinflated).

It also assumed the current inflated fuel prices, which will go down since CCP effectively made ganking miners in highsec impossible in 1.2 as well. This wasn't a mistake of Akita T's though since that info wasn't available yet.
Sigras
Conglomo
#679 - 2012-07-24 16:47:29 UTC
you have to count the opportunity cost of the cobalt that you'd be mining from the moon

Assuming that the current prices hold true, and that the POS holders are happy with 100 mil profit a month, the new resting price of PT should be around 39,000 isk/unit.

Yes im factoring in the cost of buying the cobalt because the minerals you mine are not free.
Salient Soldier
#680 - 2012-07-24 16:47:53 UTC
well the change to moon goo is pretty weak... so im pretty much done with this ****. CCP lacks the balls to fix their own end game.