These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lead Faith
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#421 - 2012-07-19 23:46:54 UTC
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
Ivan Ward wrote:
What is technetium?


It's like the spice in Dune...only with Goons instead of sandworms.


Best description ever.
YuuKnow
The Scope
#422 - 2012-07-19 23:59:15 UTC
22 pages is 5 hours...

... I say your on to something Fozzie.

yk
Y'nit Gidrine
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#423 - 2012-07-20 00:15:09 UTC
Fiberton wrote:
Within 120 days after nerf you will lose 1/3rd member base. What do you think keeps people around? Ship reimbursment.


i hatechosingnames wrote:
Aryndel Vyst wrote:
More regions to conquer I suppose. Woe is me!


We'll have to conquer everywhere.

More structure shoots.



Fly safe :)


Ships will still be reimbursed, it's just that alliances will start favoring T1 over T2 ships instead.
Nomad I
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#424 - 2012-07-20 00:22:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Nomad I
Really we need something better than a small adjustment. Alchemy isn't the solution and a temporary fix for the mess. Because CCP has to check the market and then to adjust values. Meanwhile the prices are exploding and going down, because CCP changed EVE to a Las Vegas. The problem with alchemy is the amount of fuel costs for towers and the junpfreighters can't be calculated.

To prepare a greater nerf, reduce the Tech for T2 amounts with 5%-15% for Tech and tech will going down to less than 50000 ISK. It's much easier to nerf Tech in this way than experimenting with alchemy.
Circumstantial Evidence
#425 - 2012-07-20 00:28:22 UTC
I recall a dev comment that with the advent of 64bit item ID, it's possible to have maker's marks on produced goods.

Extending that, I like some of the ideas in response to the OTEC ad - get "real tech" for quality components: downgrade parts made using alchemy.

I would not mind meta levels for T2 parts, that would be based on the number of production steps involved in making the part.

But, because any T2 part should in some way be better than T1 meta 4, the difference between meta levels of T2 parts might not matter much, given that the stats for current T2 parts (high meta in a new system) should not change.
Shade Millith
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#426 - 2012-07-20 00:35:01 UTC
The only thing I have to say, is be damn careful.

Constantly decreasing the viability or allure of 0.0 will just result in more and more people heading to empire.
Dreadful Bride
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#427 - 2012-07-20 00:39:15 UTC
I think keep the moons roughly as they are but add a moon mining module with crystals to select what you get. For this to work a moon will be limited to how much it can produce an hour set at the current extraction rate for a moon harvester array. Then with the moon mining module anything that can be taken out from under the tower will be removed from how much the tower gets.

For range it would probably just need to be activated anywhere within a set distance from the moon.
A XL miner would extract at 1/10 the rate of an array.
A L miner 1/20.
A M miner 1/40.
and a S miner 1/80

So a fleet of 80 small ships would take an hour to deplete a moon and 160 would take 30 min and so on.

The mining cycle should be low enough that the ships arent locked down long enough to be scanned down easily if they are paying attention but should increase with size.

This allows fleets to go in and harass a good moon holding alliance get some moon goo and the alliance needs to hunt them down and defend the moon.

This would also work well with ring mining if the moons are left as the main source of the goo.
Mercedes Lola
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#428 - 2012-07-20 00:43:45 UTC
nice change for some,but when are we gonna be able to mine the belts on the moons for tech
and will there be new mining barges for this? Roll
Lord Helghast
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#429 - 2012-07-20 00:45:54 UTC
nice dev blog, but we really need the new pos's sooner rather than later... pos spam to get reactions is stupid the fact we can't just install bigger POS CPU cores or power plants is stupid.... thats what needs to get fixed....

as for tech.... ugh the alchemy is a nice step but you do realize all alchemy is current broken hell there never profitable especially after fuel costs
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Brothers of Tyr
Goonswarm Federation
#430 - 2012-07-20 00:55:30 UTC
I like the change, but as someone else suggested a better way to solve the tech crisis is to change moon material requirements of tech 2. Tech is valuable because it is the limiting reagent, that used to be the R64's. I would make R64's that are relatively evenly distributed throughout regions be the limiting reagent.

alchemy to turn other materials into tech only reinforces tech being the end game of moon materials that you would want to convert others into it. The price may go down, but tech will still be king in moon resources, the other moon types will be middle class in comparison.
Crexa
Ion Industrials
#431 - 2012-07-20 00:58:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Crexa
Alchemy and subsquent "bandaid" measures are just that, bandaids. I don't dis-approve of you trying to fix the issue, just how.

I believe a far more elegant solution is as follows:

T1 ships/modules use 100% mined ore/refined minerals.

T2 ships/modules use 50% moon minerals and 50% mined ore/refined minerals (versus the current use of a T1 vessel/mod in construction).

T3 ships/(future modules/ship classes) use 33% wormhole material, 33% moon material, and 33% mined ore/refined minerals.


In essence, this reduces the cost of ships/modules across the board for T2/T3 with a slight increase in the cost of T1 items. It reduces the need for moon goo for T2 but adds a new outlet for its use in T3 which you can adjust to take advantage of disparities in those that are used to those that currently considered low value high end. And, presuming new ship classes will be created in the T3 area its open ended.

It does this without adding a bunch of complexity (alchemy), that is really not needed and has a much smaller impact on supply/demand but a bigger visual impact.

Barring a solution like the above. Just evaluating the current mix of materials used now to thier relative values and say adding more of the cheap moon minerals ie. atmospheric gases, hydrocarbons and reducing the amount of high ends might work.

Or increasing the number of moons, say by opening up the 0.4 moons to mining.

"F=ma, so obviously they're putting mouths against arses to produce a force." "...its breakfast time and i am very hungry. may i have some of your paint chips?"
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#432 - 2012-07-20 01:07:24 UTC
Crexa wrote:


In essence, this reduces the cost of ships/modules across the board f


Why reduce the cost? Eve is finally cycling back around to where, for the common player, loss actaully matters. If the moon goo is finally removed as a passively accumulated material then all will be right with the world

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Crexa
Ion Industrials
#433 - 2012-07-20 01:13:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Crexa
Grath Telkin wrote:
Crexa wrote:


In essence, this reduces the cost of ships/modules across the board f


Why reduce the cost? Eve is finally cycling back around to where, for the common player, loss actaully matters. If the moon goo is finally removed as a passively accumulated material then all will be right with the world




Because that seems to be one of the, if not stated, implied goals. If not I have mis-interpreted what they are attempting.

"F=ma, so obviously they're putting mouths against arses to produce a force." "...its breakfast time and i am very hungry. may i have some of your paint chips?"
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort
#434 - 2012-07-20 01:36:06 UTC
Its a step in the right direction BUT,

If you really want to effect some price change it needs to move to the boosted alchemy ration of 40/95 rather than 10/95, the current rate will not effect much price change.

ALSO if you run full reactions to keep a complex reactor going all the time you would need to be running 10 alchemy reactors, so at a minimum 10 caldari large poses jsut to get 100 plat technite units per hour. This is terribly balanced, if anything this blog will cause a rise in fuel prices because of the massive number of poses to make the reaction worth it. My bet is that this will cause isotope prices to rise with a very meager fall in tech price.

Also, you cant use the plat tech price to determine the reaction profitability. Not much plat technite volume is sold, the real volume is in nanotransitors and tech itself, CCP needs to be looking at the reaction chains as a whole not just plat technite. The items price that we want to change isnano transistors and fullerides which bring tech 2 item and ship cost down.

So unless the volume is boosted substatily all you have done is put a system in palce to realease pressure, you havent actualyl given us a tool to affect any real change in tech prices.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#435 - 2012-07-20 02:03:50 UTC
Crexa wrote:



Because that seems to be one of the, if not stated, implied goals. If not I have mis-interpreted what they are attempting.



I think its more that they want to stop the few of us who have fought and clawed our way into owning these moons, then schmoozed each other into removing any threat to said moons from having such a hard lock on the economy.


The bleed off from the fixes will take years to even out but its a needed step, as the financial power that can be brought to bear by just a few holders right now is pretty insane.

To give you an idea, my alliance has taken in about 9 trillion (with a T) isk since we first took our moons a year and a half ago. We have put that to fairly devastating use by buying just about every member of the alliance (still have a few without) supers and or titans, dreads, and carriers, and generally spreading it around the members to make sure we have no poors in the alliance overall.

And my estimate is conservative.

Its not any rule or cheating we've done to achieve this, its just the natural workings of war and politics in 0.0 and the balance needs to be returned since we've ridden this for about as long as we can.

And we've been crying for it to change since September of last year, but were constantly shocked and amazed that patch after patch the tech was left alone.

Well, now they have Fozzie, stunningly handsome man that he is, and it looks like he's going to fix it.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
steave435
Perkone
Caldari State
#436 - 2012-07-20 02:11:25 UTC
Kosmoto Gothwen wrote:
First off glad this is all getting looked at.

I wanted to show some real numbers to the profitability of this:
Cobalt 100 x 24 x 7 = 16,800 = approx 128,100,000isk/wk
Platinum 100 x 24 x 7 = 16,800 = approx 106,476,552isk/wk
128,100,000isk + 106,476,552isk = 234,576,522isk/wk

Produces Platinum Technite which refines into
Platinum Technite 10/hr x 24hrs x 7days = 1,680units = approx 176,566,303.20isk/wk
Platinum 95/hr x 24hrs x 7days = 15,960 = approx 101,184,644.40isk/wk
Output value per wk = 277,750,947.60isk

Approx Large Tower fuel cost = 147,840,000isk/wk
Approx Medium Tower fuel cost = 73,920,000isk/wk

Profits
Large Tower = 277,750,947.60 - 147,840,000 = 129,910,947.60isk/wk
Medium Tower = 277,750,947.60 - 147,840,000 = 203,830,947.60isk/wk

So the above isk values are based on current Jita avg sell prices via eve-central. (Not worth nit picking isk prices when dealing with this size of numbers, and values fluctuate). Also I'm assuming your doing this on a single tower, it's doable but to get both resources on a single moon isn't likely, so you probably end up with multiple POS's or shipping one of the resources in, either way it would cut into the profit margin. As you can see at currently inflated market values it would be marginally profitable to do this reaction but if PlatTech went down it wouldn't be worth doing any more. Even at these numbers the risk is moderately high considering you have a billion isk POS set up (including fuel) to do this.


You're making it way too complicated.
With current prices, running a medium POS with a simple reactor on a Cobalt moon would cost ~360k for the fuel and ~30k for the platinum each hour, for a total of 390k. That produces 10 plat tech, so to break even, plat tech price wouldn't have to be higher then 39k/unit, roughly equivalent to a regular tech price of 70-75k.

The profit scales up very slowly though as tech price goes up, even with the pre-anouncement plat tech price at 90k you'd only be making 85m/week, but it's still profit beyond the 40k/unit mark, and even lower if you can get the stuff you need trough buy orders instead of getting it from sell orders.
Since cobalt moons are so common though, any individual could easily set up a few moons without support from a corp or alliance, so despite the low profit margin, you'd still have a fair number of people doing it if price gets too high.
Little Fistter
Ordo Rosa Crux Templaris
#437 - 2012-07-20 02:21:51 UTC
What KoolAid are you devs drinking?Shocked

The problem is that you have an exclusive monopoly because of unwise distribution of a virtual resource. Simple solution is to seed it in lots more places.

Instead of solving the problem you are just making a bad situation worse. MORE wasted time moving pixels from one bin to another and forcing us to wait a few days for the result? WHY?Attention

Simplify. Seed everything everywhere, heck you can even have resources become more available or less as you need to balance the economy.

Right now you are giving the dominant alliances all the power. Playing reaction/refine games, wastes time and POS fuel, and makes industrial characters ponder other realms.

You want more PVP??? Make ships cheap and plentiful. Want more chinese walls around the best systems? Keep on dreaming dumb complications like these and calling them a solution.

Why can't drone rats drop moon goo? The are no good for anything now anyway.Question

Making the game more complicated is not making it more fun.

Fix the problem, do not obfuscate it!!!Lol

Little Fistter, industrious alt.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#438 - 2012-07-20 02:32:41 UTC
Little Fistter wrote:

Right now you are giving the dominant alliances all the power.


Excuse me little...eh..man..


They didn't give us anything. We took it from the 65,000 player coalition that held it before us then we turned it into something more than what they were doing with it.

Sorry that it doesn't fit your jaded view of reality but thats actually what happened with it. Nobody was given anything...

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Katalci
Kismesis
#439 - 2012-07-20 02:42:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Katalci
I don't think that there's anything wrong with the way things currently are. The idea of a cartel controlling the marketing of vital commodities is something I'd think CCP would love; it's one of those things that makes EVE come up in a non-gaming newspaper or magazine.

Tech isn't really optimal, though. A better way to do it would be to have four (or five, if you want to separate ships and modules) separate critical moon minerals, one for each race, with each one concentrated in a separate part of the map.

MeBiatch wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
yeah, if mining raw cobalt and platinum is only slightly less proftable then transmuting them to Technetium, that means alchemy+ at razor-slim profit margins is barely more efficient then technetium trade which is saddled by a markup of thousands of percentage. which means this solves very little except capping tech prices at their present value which CCP Fozzy described as "broken".



cant you just do pi stuff and gas mining so that runing a pos is free? plus free moon goo means its all free

minerals I mine are free
Burzrujat
XieDu Fleet
#440 - 2012-07-20 02:50:06 UTC
Hmm... this guy's okay.