These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Dev Blog: Resource Shakeup in Odyssey: Just don’t call it a Cataclysm + Companion blog

First post First post First post
Author
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#221 - 2013-04-27 04:17:30 UTC
Decarthado Aurgnet wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
The casual player shouldn't be concerned about isk/hr, and those who want maximum isk/hr in the safety of highsec are the lowest common denominator and CCP shouldn't cater to them.


You'll note that CCP is specifically catering to low/null miners already with the mineral changes to the ores in those areas.

No, I realize that. I'm addressing those who are complaining about it.

Decarthado Aurgnet wrote:
Some people like to camp gates and set up border traps ... but to have it almost be a requirement that lots of people be on every border gate at all times seems, for lack of a better word, asinine to me.

It's not a requirement at all. It's pretty unnecessary.
Many players will camp gates, but it's not to protect miners and ratters, it's mainly just to get kills. The miners and ratters really should be looking out for themselves.


Frankly the "semi-AFK" argument is the one worth addressing, and I definitely can understand easily why someone would choose to do so.

The thing is, if you're semi-AFK mining, you've already chosen to forgo maximum isk/hr in exchange for convenience. So again, why should CCP cater to you when you don't even cater to yourself?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

mynnna
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#222 - 2013-04-27 04:18:11 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Akturous wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Akturous wrote:
Still going with the passive income model for moon goo aye?

Why on Earth don't you implement the moon ring mining system? The redistribution of moons and demands will do absolutely nothing to stop one entity controlling one section (jump drives negate any kind of distance) and it's still passive income.




Quote:


Phase Two is not the end of our plans for Tech Two industry and mineral collection. We are not entirely satisfied with the mechanics of moon mining itself and would like to make changes in the future to provide more opportunities for active gameplay that can be disrupted by small groups of pilots. However we are confident that Phase Two will both improve the health of the game as a whole and lay a stronger foundation for the future iterations.


If I could make this twenty point font and bright red, I would.


So does this mean they'll remove moon mining from pos's competely? No they won't and until they do it will be failed.


Roll

It's a work in progress. Consider it this way: Ring mining probably requires a ton of new art assets, and we've heard multiple times just at Fanfest how long new art assets take, nevermind things like "We gave the Naglfar a bonus and took away its missiles so we wouldn't have to redo the art."

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Calathorn Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#223 - 2013-04-27 04:19:52 UTC
you guys have once again confirmed how insane you really are


(never change)Big smile

BRING BACK THE JUKEBOX

I attended the School of Hard Nocks, the only place you will ever learn anything of value, sadly most Americans never meet the requirments to attend

Decarthado Aurgnet
Imperial Combat Engineers
Empire of Arcadia
#224 - 2013-04-27 04:20:41 UTC
Akturous wrote:
So does this mean they'll remove moon mining from pos's competely? No they won't and until they do it will be failed.


CCP has been quoted as saying they don't like the idea of passive income in general. Moon mining mechanics, datacores, etc ... they're working on ways to make it all be active sources of income.

Remove T2 BPO's or make them inventable at extreme cost.

Ronan Teisdari
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#225 - 2013-04-27 04:23:37 UTC
The names for the new Composites and Intermediates are terrible. They don't fit in with the rest of the names, nor do they conform to existing materials.

Thulihaf?
ProMerc?

Really?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#226 - 2013-04-27 04:24:42 UTC
I dare you to come up with a definition of "passive income" that actually sounds passive and includes moon mining.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#227 - 2013-04-27 04:25:29 UTC
Ronan Teisdari wrote:
The names for the new Composites and Intermediates are terrible. They don't fit in with the rest of the names, nor do they conform to existing materials.

Thulihaf?
ProMerc?

Really?

devblog wrote:
Please note that all names for the new materials and composites are placeholders.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#228 - 2013-04-27 04:28:28 UTC
Dilbert HighSeed wrote:

Gankers...in the deep null sec alliance enclaves...giggle.

BTW, on a different note, that quarter trillion you invested in ice products, on the strength of just the screen shot of the Pax presentation, guess that turned out pretty well for you. Most people would suggest that a 250 billion investment in something like that would be called a crazy gamble, unworthy of a great economic mind. Unless of course, you had some way of knowing that it was a pretty safe bet.

In completely unrelated news, a dev was fired this past summer for giving away key info to null sec alliance members.

constable, that consulting detective claims to have solved this case through analysis of tobacco ash

we all know such a gamble would be unworthy of a great detective mind

inspector Lestrade, arrest that goon
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#229 - 2013-04-27 04:31:10 UTC  |  Edited by: EvilweaselSA
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
EvilweaselSA wrote:
i disagree; once properly balanced the smarter miners can realize that the riches of a/b/c outweigh the occasional barge loss

risk is a cost and the people in nullsec will be the ones who can properly value it not run from it screaming in terror

You're not making any sense.
Maybe you're just trolling, since, well, goons do that, but I seriously doubt any intelligent miner is going to go "welp, if that neut that just entered local warps in and cynos a fleet on my ass to blow me up, that's just the cost of operation."

He's going to warp to a safe pos because not getting your ship blown up is a lot more cost effective.

EDIT: Or maybe I misunderstood what you said.

its the misunderstanding bit ; nullsec miners will not cower at the risk they **** up,don't safe up and then die by refusing to mine in 0.0 and fleeing to empire, they just try to Not Die next time

our bedwetting friend believed that miners cannot tolerate the least bit of risk, even just risk they themselves **** up

the only option a miner has and should have in the presence of predators is to flee

sometimes you are too drunk to flee and then welp
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#230 - 2013-04-27 04:33:07 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
EvilweaselSA wrote:
i must say i am really really really unhappy about having to rescan the 60k+ moons we have scanned

UUGH

Wow, you Goons scanned 60k+ moons? What a carebearish thing to do.... lol. ;)

turns out when you're the best alliance of the last decade and conquer a new region all the goddamn time you accumulate a lot of scans
mynnna
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#231 - 2013-04-27 04:42:25 UTC
EvilweaselSA wrote:
Sizeof Void wrote:
EvilweaselSA wrote:
i must say i am really really really unhappy about having to rescan the 60k+ moons we have scanned

UUGH

Wow, you Goons scanned 60k+ moons? What a carebearish thing to do.... lol. ;)

turns out when you're the best alliance of the last decade and conquer a new region all the goddamn time you accumulate a lot of scans


Yeah our "conquer and live in every region" bucket list is missing like, the drone regions.

And that's it.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#232 - 2013-04-27 04:52:17 UTC
With ice providing 80% of the pos fuel needs, there's going to be a major price increase in ice 'cause mining in lowsec is imminently hazardous. The problem is that mining is still incredibly dull, and promotes afk-ism, and people generally don't like doing that outside of HS.

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.

Liz Laser
Blood Tribe Inc
#233 - 2013-04-27 05:00:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Liz Laser
Galphii wrote:
With ice providing 80% of the pos fuel needs, there's going to be a major price increase in ice 'cause mining in lowsec is imminently hazardous. The problem is that mining is still incredibly dull, and promotes afk-ism, and people generally don't like doing that outside of HS.


Eventually, they're going to have to make it so that mining (including ice mining) is all about moving around to find asteroids and then rushing to the asteroid to zap it first and it instantly goes into cargo and then you and your bros take off looking for more asteroids.

Make it frenetic and competitive, even in high-sec.

As long as we can afk stuff, we will. But there's no particular benefit to the game of afk players EXCEPT for those ever important subscription fees.
Nick Bete
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#234 - 2013-04-27 05:17:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Nick Bete
Liz Laser wrote:
Totally ok with risk vs reward. Would settle for Hi-sec being ENTERTAINING, especially for those of us with small chunks of playtime.

Like I said in another post... I WANT null-sec to be the best place for when I have time for it.


Perhaps you're right. If you read my bio I never claimed to be a genius. Let's just hope the rest of high-sec has imagination, or big enough chunks of time for fun like incursions.

I'm totally ok with the idea that I can unsub until I have the free time null-sec requires, (even if it is through my own lack of imagination and I spend that 45 minutes a night watching episodes of Firefly again).

What would really suck is if lots of other high-sec people also see high-sec becoming unrewarding. That would mean no Eve for me to come back to when i develop leisure time again.

No one has ever succeeded at converting large numbers of carebears into PvPers (at least no one with death penalties as high as Eve's). They'll just go elsewhere once they see their playspace becoming unworthwhile.

And pages later I guess no one *can* point me to ANY Odyssey improvements that benefit or entertain high sec players? Or did that question get lost in the shuffle?


You won't find any because this expansion is, and looks like those for the foreseeable future, are all about the null sec crowd. CCP's listening to the null sec zealots who scream the loudest on the forums as well as the null dominated CSM. This isn't about balance or simply buffing null, it's about buffing null at the expense of high sec. This is what the zealots have been striving for for years. They want high sec to be a starter area for newbies with only very limited resources so that targets are driven out to low sec and potential worker drones to null.

Hey, high sec is the perfect isk generating, no risk, no skill required paradise. The non-valued suckers, err I mean...subscribers there, don't deserve anything better, right? Roll

Yeah, there are things that are broken with null especially but, why correct those issues on the backs of one particular group of players?
pussnheels
Viziam
#235 - 2013-04-27 05:23:02 UTC
Dear CCP
do any of your developers actually play this game
i seriously doubt they do

you basicly told that 70% of your players are not welcome any more

and i will not be the only one who will not play a game wheredespite the advertisment of open ended oportunities CCP only caters to a small minority of what are basicly assholes and the rest are only there to pay your development costs

I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire

Josef Djugashvilis
#236 - 2013-04-27 05:41:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Josef Djugashvilis
Malcanis wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:

These changes will not encourage more miners to head out to null sec.


Maybe not, but they're certainly encouraging the people already in nullsec to look at whether they should be mining.


Just a thought.

If folk in hi-sec mine, they are deemed by many null-sec - lo-sec folk to be bots, bot aspirant, not playing Eve properly etc.

Will the same rules apply to null-sec - lo-sec folk who now take up mining?

This is not a signature.

Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#237 - 2013-04-27 05:58:10 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Aria Ning wrote:
Right. The probing bought you additional time to get out of dodge if you saw someone out with combat probes on your D-scan. But this systems just makes it even riskier to mine. In fact I think the scanning system itself may defeat the ore redistribution's purpose, meaning you're getting more reward but a lot more risk, the risk might even outweigh the reward.


It takes ~30 seconds for me to get to an anomaly from the time I jump in to the time that I drop out of warp in the anomaly, even if the anomaly is particularly close to my in-gate (less than 1AU). That's the time necessary to run the system scanner (10 seconds), during which I d-scan to determine the range they're at, the time to choose the anomaly (2-3 seconds), and then the time to enter and exit warp. If they're further away, they're safer. On top of that, gravimetric anomalies are a hell of a lot larger than ratting anomalies and the warp-in point for an intruder may not actually be anywhere near the points you'd sit miners at to mine from, adding extra safety.

Basically, this is not a tremendous increase in risk. It's the difference between "a gang can't threaten you at all unless they have probes" and "a gang can maybe threaten you, if they're fast on the scanner and you're paying an exceptionally low amount of attention."

Except in wormholes, where we don't have the local channel. This is a huge increase in risk in WHs.
Josef Djugashvilis
#238 - 2013-04-27 06:04:19 UTC
EvilweaselSA wrote:
a miner is prey and its only defense, like prey, should be fleeing to safety when the predators arrive


Ooh, you do sound so tough.

You need to tone down the role-play a notch or two.

50% of players play solo, (quoted at fan-fest) so it is rather difficult for any solo miming ship to defend itself against a pvp ship.

This is not a signature.

Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
The Network.
#239 - 2013-04-27 06:19:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde
On moons in particular, moving the "Tech" and previously "Dyspro" bottlenecks to a general "R64 bottleneck" with T2 racial flavor providing a shifting market-based way to influence which mineral is most valuable is awesome. I supported it during my campaign and I'm pleased as peach it's the general principle CCP Fozzie adopted to solve the problem of One Moon to Rule Them All without killing off moons as a conflict driver.

But most importantly I'm encouraged to see CCP deliver on a critical promise within a year. Late 2012 after much poking and prodding by players and CSM for years CCP finally took a look at Technetium with the Cobalt alchemy process. It didn't solve the problem, but at least undercut price-fixing by regional cartels to some degree and provided a new low-level conflict driver by moving some of the value of Tech into Cobalt and Platinum moons.

But again, didn't solve the problem. CSM7 pushed hard for them to REALLY look at the underlying issues of the tech bottleneck, implement R32 alchemy as a first step to rebalancing T2 production, and include that language in the dev blog releasing Tech alchemy. Most people and bloggers thought CCP would never follow through which tbh they had good historical reason to believe. I'm sure Fozzie got sick of me poking about it but I really wanted them all to be wrong and for us to finally get the fixes this mechanic has needed for years. And sure enough, here we are! With a moon mineral production approach that at least has a chance of standing the test of time (by all means Mynnna, Akita T, etc rip these numbers apart before June to make sure of it).

A lot of that credit goes to CCP Fozzie in particular, who really took this spreadsheet on and delivered. Throughout all of it like he has with ship balancing he's really collaborated with your representatives and loves getting + using direct feedback from players.

So thank you CCP and thank you Fozzie

Now with that said, about those Apoc nerfs... ;p

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Dawn Harbinger
Cynosural Edge
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#240 - 2013-04-27 06:24:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Dawn Harbinger
Well done Fozzie and Co!

Edit: And thanks to the CSM members who helped push for these changes Lol