These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#301 - 2013-04-27 14:53:29 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


2) How about, because they actually earned them?

You are proposing a massive shift in game balance and your reasoning is "because they actually earned them"

Maybe you could elaborate on how you believed they earned the right to between 36,000 and 50,400 manufacturing slots?

Yes I do believe they need more slots and even more than what has been proposed but 36,000 + slots?


Maybe you could explain how the 68,050 manufacturing slots in hisec were "earned"?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#302 - 2013-04-27 14:59:32 UTC
Liz Laser wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Liz Laser wrote:
Miners don't get respect in null. They get treated like renters... renters wearing dresses.

That's generally because mining in null is currently a rather pointless thing to do.
If it's made worthwhile then nobody's going to be laughing. It will be treated with the same respect as ratting (which frankly doesn't get treated with much respect either).


I'll believe it when I see it.

And I agree on the ratting comment. As long as alliances had moongoo incomes to replace everyone's PvP losses, ANY form of grinding looked like wallet fattening greed when we should, instead, be engaged in PvP.


This is precisely what needs to change.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Liz Laser
Blood Tribe Inc
#303 - 2013-04-27 15:00:57 UTC
Molic Blackbird wrote:
Rujin Bellagraff wrote:
Regarding Ore/Ice mining. Many high-sec bears will be just that. No amount of convincing will move them over to low/null sec.
Some options they are probably considering:
- If one is a high-sec Ore miner, become an Ice miner. Join the throngs of pilots that will do the same, and learn to ninja the Ice belts that spawn, creating a monopoly for themselves.
- Join the high-sec incursion bear community.
- Unsub their high-sec bear accounts.

I would suspect that the percentage of miners that will actually move is less than 10%. Which means CCP is counting on the null-bears (bots) to pick up the slack. I am not a gambling person; so not sure of the outcome.

So CCP must have considered these 'risks vs. rewards', as they like to put it, and decided to move forward with these changes. Only time will tell if the change was good on their behalf (if their overall subscription goes up or down).



With these changes, ice prices will rise until mining ice is as profitable as mining the ABCs. When mining ice makes just as much as ore mining in 0.0, miners will switch. That means, those lucky enough to get to mine Ice in high sec will make as much ISK per hour as 0.0 miners.


though the difficulty of searching for and competing for it in high-sec might challenge the isk/hour calculation. It might be interesting, though.
KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#304 - 2013-04-27 15:06:10 UTC  |  Edited by: KIller Wabbit
The only thing happening while making null less dependent on HiSec for minerals is hardening of the blue donut. CCP just put frosting on it.


Remember: CCP's goal is cash. The harder it is on HiSec, the more cash they make.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#305 - 2013-04-27 15:06:23 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


2) How about, because they actually earned them?

You are proposing a massive shift in game balance


That's literally true, I suppose, although I'd phrase it as "correcting a massive imbalance"

Unless you think that the trillions of ISK that EVE players have spent should actually only entitle them to 3% of the production capacity of hi-sec?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#306 - 2013-04-27 15:09:20 UTC
Traidir wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
At the same time as we seed these new minerals into moons, we will also be somewhat reducing the time required to complete a moon scan, to ensure that players can find the new minerals in a reasonable time period.


This is a missed opportunity: scanning moons could have been made into a game of its own... rather than: "Launch probes... wait... see if you won." *snore*... There should be a graphical interface, showing all the systems moons and the distribution layout (that you've scanned out so far). There should be active player input for detecting minerals; sloppy players should have a chance of missing resource caches that skilled players might catch. There should be an wide opportunity for PVP during the scanning: i.e. ships cant be cloaked while scans are underway... or perhaps a giant flag that says "someone is here" (as with planetary districts for example). There is even the possibility for scaning-result interference as players try to sabotage each other. Dust players could even be involved in the process. Serious, serious opportunity missed.... Is there still time to change things?


Once the scans are done and end up in Dotlan - end of game and a lot of wasted CCP dev work.
Liz Laser
Blood Tribe Inc
#307 - 2013-04-27 15:13:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Liz Laser
Gilbaron wrote:
Yeah, because having a 24/7 icemining division in highsec has always been mittens favorite wet dreamRoll


I get the humor, but as someone who was in Goon friendly alliances during part of The Great Gallente Ice Swindle I can assure you that if you were blue to Goons you were able to ice mine High-sec Gallente ice with much less chance of being ganked.

So your main was out in null mindlessly shooting at structures or camping a gate and all your alts were mindlessly ice mining.

My guess is that making ice mining more about chasing it and competing for it would only make it MORE appealing to those who'd seek to monopolize such an essential commodity.

Just guessing though.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#308 - 2013-04-27 15:14:36 UTC
Gilbaron wrote:
Yeah, because having a 24/7 icemining division in highsec has always been mittens favorite wet dreamRoll

LOL. Seriously... I don't get some of these complaints. Do people seriously believe that GSF is going to devote a significant number of pilots to ice mining in highsec? How deluded could you possibly get?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Frying Doom
#309 - 2013-04-27 15:15:58 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


2) How about, because they actually earned them?

You are proposing a massive shift in game balance


That's literally true, I suppose, although I'd phrase it as "correcting a massive imbalance"

Unless you think that the trillions of ISK that EVE players have spent should actually only entitle them to 3% of the production capacity of hi-sec?

No as I said they do deserve more than what they have been given but 500-700 is just way too much.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Dilbert HighSeed
Pirannha Corp
#310 - 2013-04-27 15:17:42 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Dilbert HighSeed wrote:
You can bet that ice interdiction parties by the null sec cartels will be a common thing.
They have the resources, pilots, and organization to mine out ice belts FAST, and at the same time bump/ destroy any other non-allied mining ships from the belts.

It will become a situation that they will have ongoing threads on their private forums stating the precise time that a new belt will spawn, allowing the next wave of their pilots 4 TZ's over to grab the entire belt's worth of ice.


I think you seriously overestimate their ability to do this to more than a handful of ice belts. They might be able to do more if they commit a significant portion of their pilots to the task, but they're not going to care that much to do it.


If there is an opportunity to control a resource, and make vast sums of ISK, the null sec cartels will allocate whatever human resources are required for a solution. It is a matter of cost / benefit.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#311 - 2013-04-27 15:20:02 UTC
KIller Wabbit wrote:
The only thing that making the null less dependent on HiSec for minerals is hardening of the blue donut. CCP just put frosting on it.


Remember: CCP's goal is cash. The harder it is on HiSec, the more cash they make.



I guess it's opposite day where you are

Unhappy opposite day to you, good sir!

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#312 - 2013-04-27 15:21:02 UTC
Dilbert HighSeed wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Dilbert HighSeed wrote:
You can bet that ice interdiction parties by the null sec cartels will be a common thing.
They have the resources, pilots, and organization to mine out ice belts FAST, and at the same time bump/ destroy any other non-allied mining ships from the belts.

It will become a situation that they will have ongoing threads on their private forums stating the precise time that a new belt will spawn, allowing the next wave of their pilots 4 TZ's over to grab the entire belt's worth of ice.


I think you seriously overestimate their ability to do this to more than a handful of ice belts. They might be able to do more if they commit a significant portion of their pilots to the task, but they're not going to care that much to do it.


If there is an opportunity to control a resource, and make vast sums of ISK, the null sec cartels will allocate whatever human resources are required for a solution. It is a matter of cost / benefit.


I wish I shared your faith in the competence and dedication of the "null sec cartel" members.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#313 - 2013-04-27 15:21:52 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
No as I said they do deserve more than what they have been given but 500-700 is just way too much.
How so? Why should they not be allowed to have it if they're willing to pay for it (and suffer the consequnces) when others get it for free and without consequence?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#314 - 2013-04-27 15:22:59 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Gilbaron wrote:
Yeah, because having a 24/7 icemining division in highsec has always been mittens favorite wet dreamRoll

LOL. Seriously... I don't get some of these complaints. Do people seriously believe that GSF is going to devote a significant number of pilots to ice mining in highsec? How deluded could you possibly get?


I'd love to see what happened if mittens gave that order

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#315 - 2013-04-27 15:23:54 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Dilbert HighSeed wrote:
If there is an opportunity to control a resource, and make vast sums of ISK, the null sec cartels will allocate whatever human resources are required for a solution. It is a matter of cost / benefit.

At the cost of doing something they actually enjoy doing, right?

Malcanis wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Gilbaron wrote:
Yeah, because having a 24/7 icemining division in highsec has always been mittens favorite wet dreamRoll

LOL. Seriously... I don't get some of these complaints. Do people seriously believe that GSF is going to devote a significant number of pilots to ice mining in highsec? How deluded could you possibly get?


I'd love to see what happened if mittens gave that order

I wonder how many would actually listen. I wouldn't.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#316 - 2013-04-27 15:24:08 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
No as I said they do deserve more than what they have been given but 500-700 is just way too much.
How so? Why should they not be allowed to have it if they're willing to pay for it (and suffer the consequnces) when others get it for free and without consequence?


No you see 700 slots is a perfectly fair and balanced number of slots for hi-sec players to get for free in invulnerable stations they can't be locked out of, but as a slot capacity for extremely expensive 0.0 outposts which can be taken away from you, it's grossly overpowered.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Caneb
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#317 - 2013-04-27 15:26:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Caneb
Frying Doom wrote:

Maybe you could elaborate on how you believed they earned the right to between 36,000 and 50,400 manufacturing slots?

Yes I do believe they need more slots and even more than what has been proposed but 36,000 + slots?

Not sure where you're getting those numbers from.

We currently have 28 Amarr outposts and 44 other outposts.

If we fully upgrade all our Amarr outposts (unlikely, but let's run with it) we'd have 250*28 = 7000 manufacturing slots, plus say 500 more from non-amarr outposts depending on upgrade level and direction.

We have 121 sovereign systems. 72 of them already have outposts and are accounted for above. If we fill the remaining 49 systems with fully upgraded Amarr factories we'd have another 12250 manufacturing slots, or roughly 19000 in total, a pretty far cry from the 36-50 thousand you pulled out of your ass.

edit: Derp, you get three T1 upgrades, not two. Math corrected.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#318 - 2013-04-27 15:28:19 UTC
Caneb wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

Maybe you could elaborate on how you believed they earned the right to between 36,000 and 50,400 manufacturing slots?

Yes I do believe they need more slots and even more than what has been proposed but 36,000 + slots?

Not sure where you're getting those numbers from.

We currently have 28 Amarr outposts and 44 other outposts.

If we fully upgrade all our Amarr outposts (unlikely, but let's run with it) we'd have 230*28 = 6440 manufacturing slots, plus say 500 more from non-amarr outposts depending on upgrade level and direction.

We have 121 sovereign systems. 72 of them already have outposts and are accounted for above. If we fill the remaining 49 systems with fully upgraded Amarr factories we'd have another 11270 manufacturing slots, or roughly 18000 in total, a pretty far cry from the 36-50 thousand you pulled out of your ass.


I believe he was replying to Tippia's assertion that 0.0 stations should be upgradeable to match the best hi-sec systems @ 700 slots or so.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Frying Doom
#319 - 2013-04-27 15:29:13 UTC
Caneb wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

Maybe you could elaborate on how you believed they earned the right to between 36,000 and 50,400 manufacturing slots?

Yes I do believe they need more slots and even more than what has been proposed but 36,000 + slots?

Not sure where you're getting those numbers from.

We currently have 28 Amarr outposts and 44 other outposts.

If we fully upgrade all our Amarr outposts (unlikely, but let's run with it) we'd have 230*28 = 6440 manufacturing slots, plus say 500 more from non-amarr outposts depending on upgrade level and direction.

We have 121 sovereign systems. 72 of them already have outposts and are accounted for above. If we fill the remaining 49 systems with fully upgraded Amarr factories we'd have another 11270 manufacturing slots, or roughly 18000 in total, a pretty far cry from the 36-50 thousand you pulled out of your ass.

Reading before commenting is a good skill.

Learn it.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Von Keigai
#320 - 2013-04-27 15:34:41 UTC
I am concerned about the proposed mechanics of icebelt respawn. Respawn happens a fixed and exact four hours after depletion of the last icebelt. This is a bad idea. It creates a "gold rush". It rewards solo play. It rewards semi-AFK players, who will be able to log in on a known schedule for their setup keyclicks. And it creates a quite unrealistic ability to know when something will be discovered in the future. "We know ice will be discovered in Otela at exactly 17:32. Just not where." A miner could be in one system, tap out the ice, then move to a nearby system for the four hours with absolute certainty that he is not missing any ice. A mining team could theoretically establish a schedule among a set of nearby ice belts, by carefully not-mining the last little bit of ice until it accords with a schedule.

The obvious tweak is make the respawn variable in time, averaging four hours but perhaps ranging anywhere from 1 hour to 7. This gives the same expected ice production, while making it impossible for players to trivially predict just by coming back in exactly four hours.

vonkeigai.blogspot.com