These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

The 10 resons why Technetium needs a nerf
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Hemmo Paskiainen
#1 - 2011-12-20 08:11:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Hemmo Paskiainen
moon distribution in eve

2x harvesting arrays on 1 moon, harvesting 200 per hour

Monthy hours 30 days x 24 = 720

Current moon goo value *200 goo* 720 hours = profit a month

Caesium..............2936,97*200*720 = 422.923.680 ISK
Technetium...........100.975,76*200*720= 14.540.509.440 ISK
Hafnium................1999,99*200*720= 287.998.560 ISK
Mercury..................3779,63*200*720= 544.266.720 ISK

Promethium.......5509,44*200*720= 793.359.360 ISK
Dysprosium.......9698*200*720 = 1.396.512.000 ISK
Neodymium.......20396,99*200*720= 2.937.166.560 ISK
Thulium..............2426,84*200*720= 349.464.960 ISK


#1. Technetium moons are the most centralised moons in EVE
#2. The Regions in where Technetium is located forms a geographic island witch greatly benefits its defenders
#3. A techitium cartel has been formed witch doesnt sell under 100,000 ISK p/u due reson #1
#4. The income compared to other R32 moons is so much more hugh that there need to be somthing broken
#5. The hugh income from #3 & #1 has a too big effect on 0.0 politic situation.
#6. After the T2 material change, T2 ships got more expensive whitchs has negative effect on pvp
#7. The NIP between the Techcartel allows people to build tech funded supercapital production risk free
#8. The unfair ISK income makes it unpossible to break the Tech Cartel
#9. 1 R32 moon has 6 x more value than the most profitable R64 moon yet the R64 is more rare
#10. Someone was sleeping the last T2 ship materiala got change
#11. There must be something wrong if even the holders say the gain too much isk form the moons
#12. 269 X 14,540 million = 3900,5 Billion isk go´s into 2-3 Allainces EACH MONTH

Let The Trolling Begin!!

If relativity equals time plus momentum, what equals relativity, if the momentum is minus to the time?
Florestan Bronstein
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2011-12-20 08:19:49 UTC
#1. I don't have a tech moon.

no further reasons required.
Akrasjel Lanate
Immemorial Coalescence Administration
Immemorial Coalescence
#3 - 2011-12-20 08:40:53 UTC
Florestan Bronstein wrote:
#1. I don't have a tech moon.

no further reasons required.

Yea


But to the point, Tech moons need to be rebalanced equaly for all regions.

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude
Pak Narhoo
Splinter Foundation
#4 - 2011-12-20 08:43:58 UTC
Best offered idea I think the player base came up with was make them deplete and spawn new "veins" of moon goo elsewhere on other moons, which may, or may not lead to more fighting over territory.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#5 - 2011-12-20 08:48:16 UTC
Can you show me evidence of a NIP between the tech-holding alliances in the game?

It doesn't exist.

In any case, tech IS getting nerfed.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Ciar Meara
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#6 - 2011-12-20 08:54:07 UTC
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:
But to the point, Tech moons need to be rebalanced equaly for all regions.



Why would people want to fight over regions if everything was distributed fairly? We are not after a magical happy poneyland in space, this games thrives on conflict, and the yearning for more wealth (aka more power) is one of the biggest driving forces.

Don't forget the need for greed, betrayal and downright sabotage that is driven by the lust for more ISK.

- [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow]
Caldari Citizen20110707
Doomheim
#7 - 2011-12-20 09:05:19 UTC
Andski wrote:
Can you show me evidence of a NIP between the tech-holding alliances in the game?

It doesn't exist.

In any case, tech IS getting nerfed.


Ask NC. Raiden. WN DFR and before tunderdome delve idea The Mitani. Only because of delve tunring dead goons have broken it.

Ciar Meara wrote:

Why would people want to fight over regions if everything was distributed fairly? We are not after a magical happy poneyland in space, this games thrives on conflict, and the yearning for more wealth (aka more power) is one of the biggest driving forces.

Don't forget the need for greed, betrayal and downright sabotage that is driven by the lust for more ISK.


Greed isnt the if u as single alliance gets 1,5 trillion a month. There is more comming in than u can ever spend. The lead corpses have trusted directors & ceo´s why shoot the milk cow if u get enough of the slice & more by just waiting and farming. All high command are feeding on free isk, lead corparations are building up hugh saving quantities. In short, the amount of ISK gained is just too big to get greedy..

I agree on magic ponly land comment but with such quantities of isk its impossible to counter that, even with bigger blobs. With this much isk you can just suicide welp any fleet on everything important. Assume 1500b Isk per allaince, that is 50 billion isk each day that can into war reimbursement. And im not even talking about the tax and massive super cap production income. With that much isk the Arms Race is accelarated soo fast that no-one can catch up. Another poor implenting issue form ccp in the time they didnt used their heads. And they still wonder why eve population isnt growing or vets returning. I still see peek 36-37k ppl logged on when it was before 45-48k. Worst thing about this poor imbalance is that it will effect EVE 0.0 for a long time to come...
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#8 - 2011-12-20 09:09:01 UTC
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:
But to the point, Tech moons need to be rebalanced equaly for all regions.
Not really, no, but perhaps it's time to shift the T2 bottleneck to some other kind of goo…
Hemmo Paskiainen
#9 - 2011-12-20 10:00:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Hemmo Paskiainen
Tippia wrote:
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:
But to the point, Tech moons need to be rebalanced equaly for all regions.
Not really, no, but perhaps it's time to shift the T2 bottleneck to some other kind of goo…


kinda pointless since current carlet just hire eveyone and his dog and moves to new position

If relativity equals time plus momentum, what equals relativity, if the momentum is minus to the time?
Ladie Harlot
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2011-12-20 10:13:11 UTC
Tech needs to be nerfed but half your list of reasons sounds like paranoid conspiracy theories and they aren't helping your argument.

The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#11 - 2011-12-20 10:27:04 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:
But to the point, Tech moons need to be rebalanced equaly for all regions.
Not really, no, but perhaps it's time to shift the T2 bottleneck to some other kind of goo…


Mineral, highest Jita buy order
Technetium, ISK 110,002.00
Neodymium, ISK 18,902.07
Dysprosium, ISK 10,002.20
Promethium, ISK 5,010.01

There should not be a "must have" moon, and R64s should not be worthless. There should be regional R32s that are more desirable than others, but not to the point where one single moon mineral is the main T2 bottleneck.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#12 - 2011-12-20 10:29:27 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:
But to the point, Tech moons need to be rebalanced equaly for all regions.
Not really, no, but perhaps it's time to shift the T2 bottleneck to some other kind of goo…


As long as it's not a moon goo, that's fine.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Aineko Macx
#13 - 2011-12-20 10:48:26 UTC
Andski wrote:
There should not be a "must have" moon, and R64s should not be worthless. There should be regional R32s that are more desirable than others, but not to the point where one single moon mineral is the main T2 bottleneck.

It is very difficult to balance supply/demand so that more than 1-2 minerals reach similar market value. Even a small difference in supply/demand between minerals causes a large market value difference once the bottleneck becomes apparent.

The simplest solution to this would be to introduce some of the missing alchemy reactions. This would at least establish some bounds of mineral value relative to each other.

iveeCore 3.0: The PHP engine for industrial activities and CREST library
Hemmo Paskiainen
#14 - 2011-12-20 10:51:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Hemmo Paskiainen
Aineko Macx wrote:

The simplest solution to this would be to introduce some of the missing alchemy reactions. This would at least establish some bounds of mineral value relative to each other.


What do u mean by this?

If relativity equals time plus momentum, what equals relativity, if the momentum is minus to the time?
Written Word
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2011-12-20 10:57:14 UTC
1. I don't have any
2. I don't have any
3. I don't have any
4. I don't have any
5. I don't have any
6. I don't have any
7. I don't have any
8. I don't have any
9. CCP it is too unfair I don't have any
10. I don't have any.

I fixed your post.
Rixiu
PonyTek
#16 - 2011-12-20 11:22:36 UTC
1. I bought stockpiles of the other "high-end" minerals in speculation for moon changes.
2. I want CCP to change moons so that I can buy myself a titan.
Aineko Macx
#17 - 2011-12-20 11:50:54 UTC
Hemmo Paskiainen wrote:
Aineko Macx wrote:

The simplest solution to this would be to introduce some of the missing alchemy reactions. This would at least establish some bounds of mineral value relative to each other.

What do u mean by this?

There is currently no alchemy reaction for Technetium. If one was introduced, people would do it as long as the input moon minerals and the cost of running the reaction is lower than of the resulting Tech.
By doing so, the supply for Tech would increase, lowering it's market value, while the demand for the alchemy minerals would increase, raising their market value.
Effectively, Tech would experience a soft upper value cap relative to the cost of the alchemy minerals and of running the reaction. Likewise, the alchemy reaction input minerals would experience a minimum value floor relative to the value of the resulting tech.

This removes the Tech bottleneck as long as the alchemy input materials are not bottlenecked themselves. This is a simplification and there are some underlying assumptions, but that's basically it.

iveeCore 3.0: The PHP engine for industrial activities and CREST library
Liam Mirren
#18 - 2011-12-20 11:53:44 UTC
Honestly, scarcity and uneven distribution is a good thing as it creates things to fight over. Everything being similar and evenly good creates for a dull landscape. From that POV I agree to how it is atm; if you want something you'll have to take it, preferably from someone else. It's like the old T2 cartels and even though I I don't profit from it I approve as it's very much EVE.

Having said that, the folks who do the balancing at CCP are just bad, before the current mechanics were implemented people in the community who know what they're talking about (I'm not one of them, been playing since 2004 but my total POS ownership time is less than a month) already stated it would be going to look like this. The problem is Tech being AND amazingly profitable AND very localised in distribution. It's a bit too much.

Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
AureoLion
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2011-12-20 11:55:14 UTC
Ever heard of.. alchemy?
introduce that for tech (and other bottlenecks, if any spawn) and we're set.
Not to a price equalization, but somewhere differences aren't 50:1.
Hemmo Paskiainen
#20 - 2011-12-20 12:05:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Hemmo Paskiainen
Aineko Macx wrote:
Hemmo Paskiainen wrote:
Aineko Macx wrote:

The simplest solution to this would be to introduce some of the missing alchemy reactions. This would at least establish some bounds of mineral value relative to each other.

What do u mean by this?

There is currently no alchemy reaction for Technetium. If one was introduced, people would do it as long as the input moon minerals and the cost of running the reaction is lower than of the resulting Tech.
By doing so, the supply for Tech would increase, lowering it's market value, while the demand for the alchemy minerals would increase, raising their market value.
Effectively, Tech would experience a soft upper value cap relative to the cost of the alchemy minerals and of running the reaction. Likewise, the alchemy reaction input minerals would experience a minimum value floor relative to the value of the resulting tech.

This removes the Tech bottleneck as long as the alchemy input materials are not bottlenecked themselves. This is a simplification and there are some underlying assumptions, but that's basically it.


So in short you are saying (im not native english). Replace the R32 componement in the T2 chain by an alchemy product that consists out multiple R32 or R64 or a combination. Pretty clever solution if u ask me. This way comes tech down, and other moon´s even out more.


Liam Mirren wrote:
Honestly, scarcity and uneven distribution is a good thing as it creates things to fight over. Everything being similar and evenly good creates for a dull landscape. From that POV I agree to how it is atm; if you want something you'll have to take it, preferably from someone else. It's like the old T2 cartels and even though I I don't profit from it I approve as it's very much EVE.

The problem is Tech being AND amazingly profitable AND very localised in distribution. It's a bit too much.


I agree with you partly. R32´s and R64´s are worth fighting aslong as they have enough value. At the moment only Technetium is worth fighing over. I totaly agree with tech being bothleneck and being the most localised moongoo.

As a director myselve, 2b moon value isnt worth it, 3b is a bit more interesting, 4b is interesting, 5+ ish B for any R64 is worth fighting. With value, pos investment must be conciderd aswell. A 2b moon, requirs a pos and fuel, pos 1b, fuel 300m a month?


those 3900 billion isk pumped in the ecomoy devide trough 5b = 780 moons worth fighting over, tech issue solved, more stuff to fight over, cheaper pvp ships, problem fixed. These 780 moon is rougly total of all R64 ingame, cap them at proxi 5b each & R32 at 2,5b each. Much more action

If relativity equals time plus momentum, what equals relativity, if the momentum is minus to the time?
123Next pageLast page