Posted - 2009.09.01 02:19:00 - [2]

 

Nerf mining!

Posted - 2009.09.01 02:36:00 - [4]

 

Boosting mining would allow miners to bring in more minerals and sell more which would promptly lose value through inflation...meaning you would get less for your minerals forcing you to have to sell more to make the same money.

For the first little while the boost will allow for more isk until the market adjusts. For those starting mining, it will take longer to become profitable because they will have no way to compensate for the lower valued minerals at first. Eventually, things will equalize and we'll be making pretty much what we're making now.

In the long run it's the ship purchaser that will eventually get the benefits of lower prices but it will take a while to trickle down.



Nerf Khemul's Sig..

Posted - 2009.09.01 03:15:00 - [6]

 

Originally by: Jacabon Mere

---

Why do people keep saying this isn't true?

---

Because people are bumbling morons who can't take some causes, some effects AND SOME BOUNDARIES, then draw a flowchart connecting them.
The mineral market as a whole is pretty much at (or very close to) rock bottom (i.e. T1 ship platinum insurance scam level), so just about ANYTHING which boosts mining yield across the board would almost directly translate in a similar boost to mining income levels (slightly below because of tighter margins and shipping times, slight variations between lowends and highends due to ease of access and so on and so forth... but it's close enough to not bother with all of that).

Posted - 2009.09.01 05:03:00 - [8]

 

Originally by: Super Whopper

---

Originally by: Washell Olivaw

---

More ways than one. For instance, removing basic T1 from the loot tables would decrease supply on the loot side while at the same time permanently increasing demand on the industrial side. It would lower the income of missionrunners though.

---

LVL4 mission loot should be nerfed even more than it has been. It should be nerfed so much that mining becomes so profitable that more people mine. After all what's the point in boosting low sec and some parts of 0.0 when people have no reason to go there? Nerf LVL 4 missions, so more people go to 0.0, resulting in more ship losses, meaning miners in empire will have to mine more, and also benefitting manufacturers.

---

While yes, it's what needs to happen it likely never will. At this point in game running high sec LVL4's is so profitable, there is little reason to go to low sec or null sec.

CCP would of course make countless cearbear emo rage quit if they nerfed LVL4's but it really is the only real solution to solve a lot of problems, not just pay for miners.

Posted - 2009.09.01 05:37:00 - [10]

 

refining loot is what needs to be nerfed, not mining boosted.

Posted - 2009.09.01 06:17:00 - [12]

 

Originally by: Akita T

---

Originally by: Jacabon Mere

---

Why do people keep saying this isn't true?

---

Because people are bumbling morons who can't take some causes, some effects AND SOME BOUNDARIES, then draw a flowchart connecting them.
The mineral market as a whole is pretty much at (or very close to) rock bottom (i.e. T1 ship platinum insurance scam level), so just about ANYTHING which boosts mining yield across the board would almost directly translate in a similar boost to mining income levels (slightly below because of tighter margins and shipping times, slight variations between lowends and highends due to ease of access and so on and so forth... but it's close enough to not bother with all of that).

---

As Akita said if mining yield is increased it will translate to a direct increase in income for mineral (the current balance between minerals worth probably will shift making some mineral more valuable than before, some less, but overall it will be a increase in value).

Removing meta0 loot from NPC drops (belt rat included, they drop more stuff for equivalent ship than mission rat) there is no guarantee that you will get the same result.

It is much more probable that you will get a shift in minerals value, making some middle and high end much more valuable and at the same time dropping tritanium value by a lot.

The players are used to low cost ships, there is a abundance of available ships and (at least currently) a dearth of big wars, so I am not sure at all that there will be a great increase in mineral demand (module production don't use so much).

From what I have seen it seem CCP is slowly reducing mission loot (no hard proof of that, it is something that only CCP can confirm as the drops are random) to avoid sudden market shocks. We will see.

Posted - 2009.09.01 07:32:00 - [14]

 

Like has been suggested for a long time now the logical step is to remove T1 loot from missions...it's also the easiest solution with the lowest impact on players and the database. Mission runners will be fine with named drops / salvage and the bounties. Would also take some pressure off the whole "NERF lvl 4s in highsec" argument for them too lol. Miners do need a boost but not through changing game mechanics. Decreasing T1 loot reprocessing from missions will definitely help their cause.

Posted - 2009.09.01 09:00:00 - [16]

 

Edited by: Akita T on 01/09/2009 09:09:58

Originally by: Jacabon Mere

---

is akita the only one on these forums that reads?

---

Nah, I think there's a dozen or so more, but they might be asleep right now

Originally by: Kezzle

---

Given that the market is at rock bottom, wouldn't you say that supply at least equals demand? So boosting mining yield would actually do nothing for mining income.
[...]
Since the market is currently saturated, the only way to increase income is to increase prices and the only way to do that is to reduce supply or increase demand.

---

You never heard of "manufacturing ships just so you can platinum insure them and blow them up" ?
At a certain mineral basket pricetag (about 70% of baseprice), the demans goes up very fast towards infinity as the price goes down even the least bit. Supply can never hope to surpass demand in that scenario... not as long as ship insurance exists.
Boosting mining yield would actually work JUST FINE if your purpose is to increase miner revenue level.

P.S. Ok, it wouldn't do much good for Mercoxit miners (where you probably won't see any noticeable difference), but for all other minerals//ores, a +X% yield increase will translate in a close to, but not quite +X% income increase.

Posted - 2009.09.01 10:31:00 - [18]

 

Everyone would like to see mining get a boost, the problem is, the mass of honest players who just want to mine as a career lose out to the macro scumbags who would inevitibly abuse any boost on an epic scale.

Until CCP gets to grips with its RMT and macro/farmer issues, which it never will now thanks to anonymous GTC purchase and use, then the game has always got to be designed with them in mind.

Posted - 2009.09.01 16:09:00 - [20]

 

Make drone alloys drop high end moon minerals instead

Posted - 2009.09.01 17:00:00 - [22]

 

Originally by: Oscardoodle

---

Reality called. He wants to know why you've been skipping class.

---

I wish. More interesting than trying to fill the 8 hours a day at work. Gotta love the time between projects.

Posted - 2009.09.01 17:41:00 - [24]

 

Edited by: XXSketchxx on 01/09/2009 17:49:37

Originally by: Kayosoni

---

refining loot is what needs to be nerfed, not mining boosted.

---

precisely

Originally by: Siona Windweaver

---

Make drone alloys drop high end moon minerals instead

---

get out.

Get rid of T1 drops from NPCs in order to boost T1 manufacturing. Decrease other T1 meta 1-4 drops to boost mining. Get rid of drone compoenents and make them drop tags like the sleepers do that certain NPC corps buy. (I'm all for just nuking the drone regions entirelyand getting rid of rogue drones; I hate finding stupid drone plexes and doing stupid drone missions).

Watch as low sec ores start getting mined (those high sec exploration belts will be a bit more sought after too).

Posted - 2009.09.01 19:04:00 - [26]

 

Originally by: Washell Olivaw

---

Originally by: Saartje Sarel

---

What precisely is the point of banning lots of people using anonoymous accounts?

All those guys will be back on time cards, completely anonymous and already training their next, next, next set of alts in stoic anticipation of the inevitable ban hammer.

---

Yup they will be, again and again and again. Right upto the point they need to sell 100 million isk for $200 in order to make a profit.

The goal of mowing the lawn is to raise the cost of doing their business to the point of eliminating their profit margin. No profit, no point selling ISK, no point in macromining/missioning/hacking/etc.

They didn't just lose characters. They lost stockpiles of ISK, they lost hulkfleets, they lost missionboats, stockpiled LP, etc, etc. The current wave of keylogger threads is because they're in dire need of ISK to replace all that as well as to keep their sales going.

---

I don't think the keyloggers are even directly associated with the isk farmers. Feel free to set me straight on that, but I have seen no admission of guilt from anyone representing or claiming to represent our asian friends? It is just 'assumed' and then woven in to the rich tapestry of Chinese Whispers that floats around the forums and is neither qualified or evidenced.

Re: reducing their profit margin, I'm not convinced about that either. They have trillions of isk to play with and they will have been smart enough to stash it away on accounts within accounts within accounts. They will have planned for this and planned round it and will continue to remain one step ahead. This isn't just some guy in his bedroom after all, its a million dollar industry. They also know CCP can't enforce half their EULA as they just dont have the man-hours available.

I concur the strategy of enforcing a diminishing return is the only practical solution given the way CCP has outsourced game time, but it is entirely futile in the long run to presuppose ban hammering is effective whilst there is no requirement to supply a valid identity to enter the game world. They effectively de-regulated their own subscription system and in so doing made lots of money (apparently) but at the expense of ever really being in control of who can and who can't access the server. Besides if, as some speculate, they actually own companies like Shattered Crystal, surely making money is their primary concern? The less tax on it the better. Eh?

Have CCP told us how precisely they managed to target so many in the latest round of banning? I'd be amazed if it was anything more sophisticated than ip addresses and known proxies. If they really wanted to beat RMT they'd have to cut their profits and fork out for a full time team of macro police and I wouldn't be so keen on that if I was getting paid for all those GTCs in the first place. Would you?

Heck I'd even strike a deal with them. It would be more equitable. People forget that CCP is a business and the point of a business is to make money at all costs. Declaring war on what is, in effect, your own revenue stream is pretty illogical. That's why - in my opinion - its all spin. Until the legislative forces in the world get a grip on the money laundering and organized crime aspect of RMT and start laying down their own ban hammer, I doubt we'll see much more than bread and circuses.

Posted - 2009.09.01 20:30:00 - [28]

 

Originally by: xxTERRORISTxx

---

Buff mining

and then

Nerf it

---

or..... nerf it. Then leave it.

(remove t1 loot from missions.)

Posted - 2009.09.01 20:32:00 - [30]

 

Quote:

---

if you read the OP you will see i didn't say anything about the profit from mining needing to be boosted.

---

I guess I really don't get it then; what in mining would you boost that wouldn't effect the bottom line (profit) for miners?


Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.