These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#961 - 2013-05-24 15:43:48 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Drago Morris wrote:

Would it be possible to know why so many will not be replaced and why Derelik will have only 2 on the same side of the map

Simply because there were so many Amarr highsec ice belts that the addition of supply as a meaningful concept for ice would have skewed the market too far towards Amarr towers. When we we deciding what belts to remove we considered geography, (including across regions, often when one area of a region seems empty it's because there's an ice belt just across the border in another region) and we also considered the volume of ice being mined there over the past several months. When we had two similar ice belts and had to remove one of them, we'd generally keep the most popular one as to cause the smallest disruption possible to the local miners.

CCP Fozzie, the new distribution has one odd property.

Say I log in my ice miner and see there is no spawn. What to do? Go to another system! Well, in Gallente, Matari, and Caldari space there are places where there are three or more ice systems all within a couple of jumps of each other.

But not in Amarr space. There the closest pair of systems are 5 or 6 jumps apart. In other space you can check in just a couple of minutes if there are any nearby spawns, but in Amarr space it will take 5 times as long to search out nearby ice systems to see if you can mine, or if its time to go do something else.

If we ever get new a starbase system, one thing I could like to have is a "remote scanner", that is a scanner I can place as a small starbase and it constantly scans the system. I can be anywhere, connect to the scanner and it tells me what anomalies are in its solar system without me having to travel there.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Laendra
Universalis Imperium
Goonswarm Federation
#962 - 2013-05-24 20:25:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Laendra
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Laendra wrote:

For instance, right now, Plasmonic catches a huge break, requiring a R64, 2x R16 and a R8...everything else has 1 of each rarity.

But, upon closer examination, there is a disparity already built into the racial materials...(e.g. Rolled Tungsten Alloy requires R8 + R32, whereas the rest require R8 + R16)


Neither of these statements is correct, so you may want to double check your numbers.


Hmmm, seems like I had my rarity switched around. Ignore my ramblings :)


Edit: It would be nice if the gases were equally used... Evap and Silicates, come on...give some love to Atm and Hyd...
Laendra
Universalis Imperium
Goonswarm Federation
#963 - 2013-05-24 20:49:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Laendra
So, I just checked the rest of the usages, including alchemy...

R64 - Dysprosium - 3 Reactions
R64 - Promethium - 2 Reactions
R64 - Neodymium - 3 Reactions
R64 - Thulium - 2 Reactions

R64s - fairly even

R32 - Caesium - 2 Reactions
R32 - Hafnium- 5 Reactions
R32 - Mercury- 6 Reactions
R32 - Technetium - 1 Reaction

R32 disparity? I think so...even it out some, or you are going to favor one area of the universe vs another.

R16 - Cadmium - 7 Reactions
R16 - Chromium - 6 Reactions
R16 - Platinum - 6 Reactions
R16 - Vanadium - 7 Reactions

R-16s - fairly even

R8 - Cobalt - 4 Reactions
R8 - Scandium - 3 Reactions
R8 - Titanium - 3 Reactions
R8 - Tungsten - 2 Reactions

R8 disparity - take a Cobalt and make it a Tungsten to even it out, from the Alchemy reactions


G - Atmospheric Gases - 3 Reaction
G - Evaporite Deposits - 5 Reactions
G - Hydrocarbons - 2 Reactions
G - Silicates - 4 Reactions

Gas disparity - take a Evaporite Deposit and make it a Hydrocarbon (preferably from the Intermediates and not Alchemy)
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#964 - 2013-05-25 06:57:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
if your changes turn out to "ruin the 0.0 community" are you going to break your cycle to fix everything and get it back to an imbalanced state for us ASAP like you did for the incursion communities, which probably have a lower percentage of "people who actually pay out of pocket for eve online" than every other group in the game, including full-time wormhole dwellers

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
kyrieee
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#965 - 2013-05-26 17:27:43 UTC
Laendra wrote:
So, I just checked the rest of the usages, including alchemy...


All reactions are not consumed equally.
You need to do a deeper analysis.
Laendra
Universalis Imperium
Goonswarm Federation
#966 - 2013-05-27 03:59:06 UTC
kyrieee wrote:
Laendra wrote:
So, I just checked the rest of the usages, including alchemy...


All reactions are not consumed equally.


Thank you for your response Captain Obvious

I was merely referring to the usages inside defined reactions, not the actual usages of those reactions, something that only the devs themselves could, maybe, determine by mining the data from the database, and not something us mere mortals could dig into.

But, since you seem to be a dev yourself, why not enlighten us with how often each of the reactions are actually created (via normal reactions and via alchemy) and then tell us how much is actually used (vs how many are merely sold)
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#967 - 2013-05-27 10:19:08 UTC
Laendra wrote:
kyrieee wrote:
Laendra wrote:
So, I just checked the rest of the usages, including alchemy...


All reactions are not consumed equally.


Thank you for your response Captain Obvious

I was merely referring to the usages inside defined reactions, not the actual usages of those reactions, something that only the devs themselves could, maybe, determine by mining the data from the database, and not something us mere mortals could dig into.

But, since you seem to be a dev yourself, why not enlighten us with how often each of the reactions are actually created (via normal reactions and via alchemy) and then tell us how much is actually used (vs how many are merely sold)


It is possible for players to use the information available to them to get a fairly accurate estimate of the usage of each reaction, although the exact numbers are kept under wraps by CCP.

However, let me assure you that I was aware of all those numbers when I made this design.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#968 - 2013-05-27 11:13:15 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
Hey everyone, got one more update to provide to you all.

Unfortunately this change mentioned in the dev blog:
Quote:
In order to encourage competition for the best mining systems and to bring adequate rewards to fully upgrading the Ore Prospecting Array, we will also be adding new variations of the Extra Large and Giant Asteroid Clusters that will only be found in locations with excellent system quality (truesec). These belts will contain improved (+5% and +10%) variations of the ore that can be found in their standard versions.

will not be able to make it into the initial Odyssey release. It's still very high on our backlog, but as usual I can't promise anything until we have had a chance to release plan it into the 1.1 patch development schedule.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
MainDrain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#969 - 2013-05-27 12:25:39 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:


If we ever get new a starbase system, one thing I could like to have is a "remote scanner", that is a scanner I can place as a small starbase and it constantly scans the system. I can be anywhere, connect to the scanner and it tells me what anomalies are in its solar system without me having to travel there.


This i like, im fairly sure there was a similar POS module in days gone by that was pulled called a System scanner (may be unrelated, ive just seen it on market)
Psihius
Perkone
Caldari State
#970 - 2013-05-27 12:57:24 UTC
I'm monitoring the ore/mineral market and it seems that ore changes actually have some dips in relative value, where some low-sec ores provide more value than some 0.0 exclusive ores.

Just take a look at this spreadsheet:
Current numbers: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmJ6H6s5fsbBdDlpSTVjYlF2ZDRBak1nSlNDRWF6eVE&hl=en_US#gid=0
Odyssey adjusted numbers: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmJ6H6s5fsbBdDlpSTVjYlF2ZDRBak1nSlNDRWF6eVE&hl=en_US#gid=33

Spodumain has a big dip in it's price even with adjusted numbers, and actually Hemorphite and Hedbergite have more value than Gneiss, Dark Ochre, Spodumain, Crokite and Bistot. And though I expect some adjustments for Gneiss, other ores will just decrease in value as tritanium and peyrite adjust, it does not really affect Hemorphite and Hedbergite because of their composition.

Any plans to make some adjustments or further balancing will be done post-Odyssey?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#971 - 2013-05-27 14:19:58 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone, got one more update to provide to you all.

Unfortunately this change mentioned in the dev blog:
Quote:
In order to encourage competition for the best mining systems and to bring adequate rewards to fully upgrading the Ore Prospecting Array, we will also be adding new variations of the Extra Large and Giant Asteroid Clusters that will only be found in locations with excellent system quality (truesec). These belts will contain improved (+5% and +10%) variations of the ore that can be found in their standard versions.

will not be able to make it into the initial Odyssey release. It's still very high on our backlog, but as usual I can't promise anything until we have had a chance to release plan it into the 1.1 patch development schedule.


As long as it doesn't get forgotten, a small delay is no biggie.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Laendra
Universalis Imperium
Goonswarm Federation
#972 - 2013-05-27 15:38:25 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

It is possible for players to use the information available to them to get a fairly accurate estimate of the usage of each reaction, although the exact numbers are kept under wraps by CCP.

However, let me assure you that I was aware of all those numbers when I made this design.



Really? I'd love to know how I could find out how much Neo Mercurite is produced overall (not just sold on the market, or produced into something useful and sold), and of that amount, how much is produced via alchemy vs standard reactions...and then repeat that information for every reaction. That'd be an awesome trick for the standard player to pull off.
Sassums
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#973 - 2013-05-28 21:56:53 UTC
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:
Sassums wrote:
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:
Vaju Enki wrote:
Sassums wrote:
Whatever Fozzie is smoking either A isn't enough, or B needs to be shared because to think the risk vs reward by changing the way grav sites are discovered is laughable at best. Making something easier is only something SOE would do (See their SWG disaster).

It makes absolutely no sense for me to be able to instantly warp to a hidden Grav Site within a WH and destroy the folks mining there without as much as a single form of warning. The only warning they have is if someone within the corp or alliance in the WH system happens to scan and see a new signature appear or if the miner happens to D-Scan before the hostile vessel can cloak. Please enlighten me as to how this is risk vs reward?

This is simply huge risk. No Reward. The amount of 200mil + Mining vessels that will be lost hardly makes up for the isk regained from mining. I'm sorry but your logic is severely flawed.


If you don't like it, go to highsec.

Except that one of the driving factors behind odyssey is supposed to be encouraging more players to move out of high sec, not those already gone to come running back. If your solution to Odyssey is go back to high sec, than Odyseey is a failed expansion.


Being able to instantly warp to a miner is hardly a challenge. If you had issues finding miners before you just had no idea what you were doing. Good WH scouts could pin a miner in under 30 seconds. Which at least is a fraction of a fighting chance compared to point, click, warp.

WOW, right over your head.

Yes it is easy to scan down either the grav site, or the ship in the grav site. Both methods however need a probe launcher on your ship. And if the miner sees a red or neut in the system they just have to watch D-scan for probes. Risky? Yes but manageable as most PVPers roaming null sec do not fit a probe launcher. As a result the risk vs reward is balanced.

the increase this change will do for miners is much less from the fact that the belts are easier to find, it is from the fact that now every ship will be able to find them. 30 seconds down to 10 seconds to get the warp point is not the problem. The problem is before only about 10% of the roamers had a probe launcher and were an actual threat, every ship in the game has a system scanner. So now 100% of the roaming ships are a threat.

Sure in W-space the impact is much smaller. But most wormhole dwellers have adeveloped a second nature for watching D-scan for threats, If you are ratting, or mining, or anything else in a wormhole site, you just watch for combat probes on D-scan. How do you suggest you acheive that same risk mitigation when there are no combat probes to see on D-scan. That 30 second window is small but enough for an alert pilot to GTFO. With not needing probes out at all to find you that 30 second warning becomes zero.


Right over your head actually - Null Sec has a warning the second someone jumps into the system. It's called Local.

Seeing as I live in WH Space - the minute a new WH appears and someone jumps in, I have no idea. All they have to do is fire their scanner and warp to the Ore sites like you would to an anom and bam they have me.

Explain how that is balanced?

Once again they are catering to the null sec folks.
Loan--Wolf
Ace's And 8's
#974 - 2013-05-29 02:03:43 UTC
eve is a school yard full of bullies and ccp likes it that way i personally cant afford to sub 4 accounts and a pos so ill be leaving soon been fun
Jed Clampett
Doomheim
#975 - 2013-05-31 06:58:16 UTC
CCP finally goes to where it should have started.

The Ice anomalies strategy is much more fair in distributing mining opportunities throughout various logon times than mining belts . It makes true bots a bit harder to operate both getting started and over sustained time. (Though frankly bots sound like mostly urban legend compared to massive multi-box. One guy in Solitude is running 11 toons to mine with cloned names.)

Reducing ice belts to 80% limited resource gives a real reason to move out of hi sec. It reflects a heavy prior mining of hi sec.
Perhaps lo sec and null should have some limited life roid ice belts to reflect a less mining depleted area....or just much larger deposits in ice anomalies. I would suggest CCP slowly creep % from hi sec down to 60% over next year or two.

CCP should do the same for ore. Belts could be left as permanent part of "anomalies" but be mostly worthless scattered slag from past mining.

Consider gating anomalies to reflect NPC megacorp influence (ownership) and noobs. Gates might limit ship sizes or impose fee by mining/hauling ability. Thus distribution of ore is not only across time zones but favors those folk still training and less lo sec ready.
Udonor
Doomheim
#976 - 2013-05-31 07:18:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Udonor
Gated resource belts or anomalies in hi sec?

Well I guess that makes sense. NPC Megacorps would have claimed some sort of rights on most hi sec ore, at least in belts.

But government probably forces them to give limited free licensed access to miners in training (noobs) . Say 1M m3 of each ore. Probably some additional ore mining could be licensed for a fee -- though if CCP wants people to leave hi sec when toons mature the amount should be finite one time buy.

Gates could decrement that ore license by one cargohold worth each time you enter regardless of if in mining ship or hauler. That would discourage huge mining fleets from raping hi sec resources and force those mature toons into lo, null or wh. Heh when your license expires you can still mine but now you are just another red cross rat in the belt unprotected by CONCORD. Maybe you get bounty based on amount mined/hauled without license.

Twisted And the possibilities for piracy would be amazing if the mining license was a physical "bearer bond" type item in cargo. It could be sold on market for profit. But more likely CODE could finally govern high sec mining with an iron hand...much like how RL unions and the mob control certain RL businesses. Better economics for the future of EVE.
Infinite Force
#977 - 2013-05-31 15:58:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinite Force
Sassums wrote:
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:
Sassums wrote:
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:


Vaju Enki wrote:

quote=Sassums
-- Whatever Fozzie is smoking either A isn't enough, or B needs to be shared because to think the risk vs reward by changing the way grav sites are discovered is laughable at best. Making something easier is only something SOE would do (See their SWG disaster).
-- It makes absolutely no sense for me to be able to instantly warp to a hidden Grav Site within a WH and destroy the folks mining there without as much as a single form of warning. The only warning they have is if someone within the corp or alliance in the WH system happens to scan and see a new signature appear or if the miner happens to D-Scan before the hostile vessel can cloak. Please enlighten me as to how this is risk vs reward?
-- This is simply huge risk. No Reward. The amount of 200mil + Mining vessels that will be lost hardly makes up for the isk regained from mining. I'm sorry but your logic is severely flawed.

If you don't like it, go to highsec.


Except that one of the driving factors behind odyssey is supposed to be encouraging more players to move out of high sec, not those already gone to come running back. If your solution to Odyssey is go back to high sec, than Odyseey is a failed expansion.


Being able to instantly warp to a miner is hardly a challenge. If you had issues finding miners before you just had no idea what you were doing. Good WH scouts could pin a miner in under 30 seconds. Which at least is a fraction of a fighting chance compared to point, click, warp.

WOW, right over your head.

Yes it is easy to scan down either the grav site, or the ship in the grav site. Both methods however need a probe launcher on your ship. And if the miner sees a red or neut in the system they just have to watch D-scan for probes. Risky? Yes but manageable as most PVPers roaming null sec do not fit a probe launcher. As a result the risk vs reward is balanced.

the increase this change will do for miners is much less from the fact that the belts are easier to find, it is from the fact that now every ship will be able to find them. 30 seconds down to 10 seconds to get the warp point is not the problem. The problem is before only about 10% of the roamers had a probe launcher and were an actual threat, every ship in the game has a system scanner. So now 100% of the roaming ships are a threat.

Sure in W-space the impact is much smaller. But most wormhole dwellers have adeveloped a second nature for watching D-scan for threats, If you are ratting, or mining, or anything else in a wormhole site, you just watch for combat probes on D-scan. How do you suggest you acheive that same risk mitigation when there are no combat probes to see on D-scan. That 30 second window is small but enough for an alert pilot to GTFO. With not needing probes out at all to find you that 30 second warning becomes zero.


Right over your head actually - Null Sec has a warning the second someone jumps into the system. It's called Local.

Seeing as I live in WH Space - the minute a new WH appears and someone jumps in, I have no idea. All they have to do is fire their scanner and warp to the Ore sites like you would to an anom and bam they have me.

Explain how that is balanced?

Once again they are catering to the null sec folks.



The Grav sites moving to d-scannable anoms is complete and utter crap. This is a NERF to NULL a HUGE NERF to WH's.

Move "regular" belts (& ice) to d-scan sites.

Leave the Grav sites alone!!

HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud

http://tinyurl.com/95zmyzw - The only way to go!
Jed Clampett
Doomheim
#978 - 2013-05-31 16:54:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Jed Clampett
ROFLMAO - "speculators start your engines"

And with those words and the details on null sec ore enhancement Fozzie set off large EVEwide ripples of price hikes about 30 days early.

Why?Because I and every other miner able to do so has been holding back all their null sec ores if possible. Creating...gasp...an artificial shortage or megacyte and to less extent zydrine and even noxcium.

OK when 4 June gets here the prices for those minerals should plunge as glut follows famine for a couple weeks. The excess amounts mined and held will give way to new normal levels. One theory (CCPs) being that the newly balanced null ores will lead to mostly null self-contained mining and industry. But since null will likely still hate mining over pew pew...I wonder if megacyte exports will drop.

Yup if CCP is right they are basically predicting megacyte shortages in high and low sec as a self-sufficient null sec mostly leaves highsec industry to wither. All given that excess megacyte is no longer needed to fund imports of hi sec minerals in the CCP vision.

And of course ice product price will climb.

So thanks for the vision of doubling most prices CCP.

I the old days we could have recycled loot...but wait didn't CCP make sure to take most of that away a year or two ago?

I love it. CCP is finally realizing how to beat people with the economic stick to force most people to leave hi sec ASAP.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#979 - 2013-05-31 19:34:51 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
MT Sackett wrote:
Ok I think I have read every post in dozens and dozens of pages in several threads, I have yet to see a CCP comment or reason on making the grav sites into anoms. There are plenty of ores in belts to mine in all but wormholes, so its not a lack of mining areas. Wanting to make wormhole mining easier ? Worm hole life is supposed to be hard. Wanting to make more parts of game easy to acess? Well if that is the reason, wow. How about putting on a probing module and go look. Exploring is supposed to be a bigger deal ? Now the grav sites will be on your screen and one click away ? That is not exploring.

What is the purpose of the change of grav sites to anoms ?

Thanks



We'd rather have the challenge provided by other players than by us.


What, exactly, is the point of this overly (purposely?) vague comment? We are talking about the one of the most defenseless hull type in the game (second only to freighters/variants).

What "challenge" to the player(s) are you referring to? Who is the "player" in your comment?

(disclaimer: I prefer to hunt and would rather log off than mine even under the current mechanics and only do so in the direst of needs - these new mechanics would ensure my flat refusal to fit a mining laser of any type, ever)

If you're suggesting to increase the challenge for players seeking to hunt and disrupt miners then you will fail at that goal and only succeed in making their jobs easier (read: LESS challenging). This is a group that needs no lowering of the entry barriers as it's already exceedingly easy to hunt and disrupt miners in all space other than HiSec space.

If you're suggesting to increase the challenge for players seeking to mine ore in any locale other than HiSec, congratulations. You've succeeded in making their jobs nigh on impossible (read: WH and 0.0/LoSec mining is already easily disrupted and very attention demanding. This is a group that needs no further increase in difficulties heaped upon them as mining in these areas is already far riskier than anywhere else.

I quite simply do not understand the concept or goals of this change. Please explain the reasoning behind this change. Otherwise it looks poorly thought-out at best and needlessly arbitrary and ignorant to your customers at worst.

I'm right behind you
Sassums
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#980 - 2013-05-31 23:07:21 UTC
Alundil wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
MT Sackett wrote:
Ok I think I have read every post in dozens and dozens of pages in several threads, I have yet to see a CCP comment or reason on making the grav sites into anoms. There are plenty of ores in belts to mine in all but wormholes, so its not a lack of mining areas. Wanting to make wormhole mining easier ? Worm hole life is supposed to be hard. Wanting to make more parts of game easy to acess? Well if that is the reason, wow. How about putting on a probing module and go look. Exploring is supposed to be a bigger deal ? Now the grav sites will be on your screen and one click away ? That is not exploring.

What is the purpose of the change of grav sites to anoms ?

Thanks



We'd rather have the challenge provided by other players than by us.


What, exactly, is the point of this overly (purposely?) vague comment? We are talking about the one of the most defenseless hull type in the game (second only to freighters/variants).

What "challenge" to the player(s) are you referring to? Who is the "player" in your comment?

(disclaimer: I prefer to hunt and would rather log off than mine even under the current mechanics and only do so in the direst of needs - these new mechanics would ensure my flat refusal to fit a mining laser of any type, ever)

If you're suggesting to increase the challenge for players seeking to hunt and disrupt miners then you will fail at that goal and only succeed in making their jobs easier (read: LESS challenging). This is a group that needs no lowering of the entry barriers as it's already exceedingly easy to hunt and disrupt miners in all space other than HiSec space.

If you're suggesting to increase the challenge for players seeking to mine ore in any locale other than HiSec, congratulations. You've succeeded in making their jobs nigh on impossible (read: WH and 0.0/LoSec mining is already easily disrupted and very attention demanding. This is a group that needs no further increase in difficulties heaped upon them as mining in these areas is already far riskier than anywhere else.

I quite simply do not understand the concept or goals of this change. Please explain the reasoning behind this change. Otherwise it looks poorly thought-out at best and needlessly arbitrary and ignorant to your customers at worst.


There is no challenge here, clearly CCP has no idea what they are doing, especially when it comes to WH's.

I jump into a WH in a stealth bomber. D-Scan, see there are Hulks on scan, fire off my onboard scanner (while staying cloaked). Warp to the belt. Kill you.

CCP has yet to explain how that is fair or balanced.

They are once again catering to the Null Sec folks who have this awesome warning called Local. We dont have that in WH space. Someone needs to removed whoever came up with this cockeyed idea.