open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked A CURE FOR MACRO MINING IN THIS DEV BLOG POST?!?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Aknot Wat
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2007.05.03 21:26:00 - [1]
 

Everyone's ship will have a "free" scanner fitted that can find them as well as the more basic Encounter sites. But it will take some effort and might be enough to throw off some macros.

"Remove Asteroid Belts...
...and replace them with exploration content. This is a big deal and will not be happening in the immediate future. We know itís a big, sweeping change that will affect most of you in one way or another, but we think itís a good idea if itís done properly."

Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
Posted - 2007.05.03 21:31:00 - [2]
 

Originally by: Aknot Wat
Everyone's ship will have a "free" scanner fitted that can find them as well as the more basic Encounter sites. But it will take some effort and might be enough to throw off some macros.

"Remove Asteroid Belts...
...and replace them with exploration content. This is a big deal and will not be happening in the immediate future. We know itís a big, sweeping change that will affect most of you in one way or another, but we think itís a good idea if itís done properly."


Won't stop macros, only slow them down a little.

They will manually move a barge to the belt, then let the macro take over. If the hauler can't be macroed into the belt they will move it manually, THEN let the macro take over. Basically the person running the macro will be able to monitor 15 machines instead of 20 Confused

What it will do is stop a miner's ability to fill their hold, jump to station, fill their hold, rinse repeat if they use any type of gating system. Makes mining more tedious and less profitable, hence increasing sales for macros

Bad move, I think. But we will see, perhaps someone at CCP is actually going to do some mining before deployment so they see how badly they are screwing over miners.

Niccolado Starwalker
Gallente
Shadow Templars
Posted - 2007.05.03 21:51:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Niccolado Starwalker on 03/05/2007 21:50:49
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
Originally by: Aknot Wat
Everyone's ship will have a "free" scanner fitted that can find them as well as the more basic Encounter sites. But it will take some effort and might be enough to throw off some macros.

"Remove Asteroid Belts...
...and replace them with exploration content. This is a big deal and will not be happening in the immediate future. We know itís a big, sweeping change that will affect most of you in one way or another, but we think itís a good idea if itís done properly."


Won't stop macros, only slow them down a little.

They will manually move a barge to the belt, then let the macro take over. If the hauler can't be macroed into the belt they will move it manually, THEN let the macro take over. Basically the person running the macro will be able to monitor 15 machines instead of 20 Confused

What it will do is stop a miner's ability to fill their hold, jump to station, fill their hold, rinse repeat if they use any type of gating system. Makes mining more tedious and less profitable, hence increasing sales for macros

Bad move, I think. But we will see, perhaps someone at CCP is actually going to do some mining before deployment so they see how badly they are screwing over miners.




I am pretty unsure on what effect moving the astroids into exploration points will have on the game.

It might be good - it might be bad. I dont know. CCP should be careful though making it difficult. If the work required to find belts get too tedious, I will have to find a different money source in EVE. Mining will be too tedious and time consuming. It might hurt the macroers, but they will find around it, since this is their "Work". The playerbase on the other hand, might move on, and only start mining again if the IPU price gets higher and more profittable. I move from belt to belt pretty fast. Anything slowing down the mining process will result in either lower income for the miner.

This is really a change I am very unsure about. Speaking from a point of Caution though: Changing working game mechanics which afftects such a huge part of the game - in Empire as in Low-Sec and deep space - should be handled very very very carefully, and only IF it has to be done. And even if I would like to see mactoers dissappear, I would hate to see ordinary miners disappear too.

PS: If worst come to worst, this might actually Help the macroers too, since they will be hidden from the suicide pilots to a certain degree, and make it harder to spot for the casual player who DO report them to the GMs. plus a possible reduction in ordinary miners will give them more belts to mine from.


Haffrage
Regeneration
Posted - 2007.05.03 22:44:00 - [4]
 

You people know what bookmarks are right? Unless this will be the same deadspace that sucks you into the same spot, which if it is I'll be pretty ****ed, they'll just warp on a bookmark like they do already.

If it is, warp on bookmark, then approach bookmark. The only solution to macros is removing them player by player or removing their tools, neither of which is easy and both are in the grey areas of "right" and "wrong."

Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
Posted - 2007.05.03 23:04:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Haffrage
You people know what bookmarks are right? Unless this will be the same deadspace that sucks you into the same spot, which if it is I'll be pretty ****ed, they'll just warp on a bookmark like they do already.

If it is, warp on bookmark, then approach bookmark. The only solution to macros is removing them player by player or removing their tools, neither of which is easy and both are in the grey areas of "right" and "wrong."


The Devs' comments have made it pretty clear that those belts will "move around", so today's bookmarks may not work tomorrow.

My main concern is that a legitimate player's tolerance to inconvinience and annoyances is normally much lower than someone who is doing it as a "job". As an example, you have to gank macros seemingly forever before they go away, but a normal miner many times will just quit after a couple of times. If they make this new system so it erodes the players' ability to make money or enjoy the game they will just leave while the macros will adapt.

I have no solutions but feel I have to voice my concerns. I hope they are unfounded.

Alora Venoda
GalTech
Whiskey Creek Alliance
Posted - 2007.05.03 23:14:00 - [6]
 

i can see how it would do little more than add an extra step to an already boring part of the game. if nothing else about the belts change, this would basically be a huge nerf.

just the fact that they would move around will have adverse effects: it would also make all my mining bookmarks useless, make it impossible to anchor cans in belts, etc.

i will not even go into the issue of how many belts appear how often, but since they will be "harder to find," they MUST have some other improvement to make up for it - even if for no other reason than to quell the uprising of angry miners... if we must work harder to mine, we should be rewarded for our troubles.

perhaps more ore per belt? or maybe even BETTER ore? or maybe combine the new "encounters" with bonus ore spawns... like how some mission areas contain large omber deposits.

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2007.05.03 23:20:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
Makes mining more tedious and less profitable, hence increasing sales for macros



Good point. Anything that makes mining more tedius only helps the isk farmers. Frankly the only thing that is going to curb farmers is limiting what NPC corp members can do or have very nasty empire faction rats that only go after NPC corp members.

Ishma Nelass
Posted - 2007.05.03 23:31:00 - [8]
 

You're all crazy. This is great! Finally mining will be made a little more interesting. And honestly, anything that forces the macro miners to rely less on macroing is ok by me.

And I don't see how it can hurt the miners profits. There will always be a demand for ore, and if mining becomes harder, then ore becomes scarcer and therefore people will pay more. The economy should re-stabilize itself. How could it not?

I just hope the low-sec ores will be worth more than the high sec ores soon... that way the PvPers might get to shoot some enterprising miners attracted by the higher profits rather than whine in the forums.
I personally find low-sec mining exciting, but there's simply no point at the moment.

Vivus Mors
Posted - 2007.05.04 16:55:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Vivus Mors on 04/05/2007 16:51:52
Originally by: Ishma Nelass
You're all crazy. This is great! Finally mining will be made a little more interesting. And honestly, anything that forces the macro miners to rely less on macroing is ok by me.


I'm a bit on the fence about this, but overall I don't think it's good. I'm adamantly opposed to cheaters in any form, however all this will end up doing is to make an already tedious profession into tedious plus the added aggravation of having to hunt for what you're going to be bored by. If they want to make mining more interesting then how about, ooooo I don't know, expanding on it. Give miners what has been promised since pre-Exodus (super massive asteroid belts and/or system wide belts), as well as faction mining materials (preferably ones that are actually worth having, not just more named items that are worse than tech 1 and make "Basic" seem not so bad), not to mention *cough*cough*

Originally by: Ishma Nelass
And I don't see how it can hurt the miners profits. There will always be a demand for ore, and if mining becomes harder, then ore becomes scarcer and therefore people will pay more. The economy should re-stabilize itself. How could it not?


Actually, that's the opposite of what would happen. Economics proves it, demand is currently stable since there aren't any new releases of big ships in the last month or so, however the supply side is always in flux based upon the productivity of both miners and those reprocessing. By altering the production side of the equation, in this case making it incrementally more difficult to mine, it will comparably tighten supply which would raise prices, which in turn inflates the market as people spend more and receive less. External forces, like CCP injecting artificially induced inflation, in a currently stable market would only lead to destabilizing it.

Now of course there is the whine that zydrine is "depressed", which is the furthest thing from the truth, it's not any more depressed than Kelly Rippa after drinking a case of RedBull. The problem with zydrine is the age old economic situation of over-supply, and the fact that every last person in all of EVE is greedy to one extent or another (otherwise you wouldn't care a wit about the price of anything, the economy of EVE, or how you or anyone else is doing). What's happening is that there are tons of people getting zydrine, and in this case not from mining even, then dumping it on the market for whatever they can get. Now being greedy, they want the sale 10 minutes before they put it up, so they price lower than anyone else so that they are hopefully first to get the money in that area. Now when Mr. Such-and-Such comes along, they see that So-and-so is selling for 20% less than market, but Such-and-Such still wants to sell quickly, he prices 25% under market. This is easily multiplied not only by enormous volumes of material, but also by dozens if not hundreds of people, and presto, the market has found a new equilibrium at a lower value. It's not a depression, because money is moving all around with little to no hindrance, it's simply people pricing low, so others are buying low.

Originally by: Ishma Nelass
I just hope the low-sec ores will be worth more than the high sec ores soon... that way the PvPers might get to shoot some enterprising miners attracted by the higher profits rather than whine in the forums.
I personally find low-sec mining exciting, but there's simply no point at the moment.


People will whine if they found Aladdin's lamp, simply because it "only" has three wishes. As for ore worth, that's the market's problem to deal with, and while CCP could intercede and make changes to effectively force the prices into line with your personal desire, it's also important that the game base be allowed to determine it's own market norms.

Ishma Nelass
Posted - 2007.05.04 18:43:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Ishma Nelass on 04/05/2007 18:39:31
*shrugs*
If you find mining so very tedious I don't know why it should interest you so much. I like mining as it is, I like in particular to mine together with 6 or seven friends in a co-ordinated operation. The addition which CCP is planning plays into this perfectly, allowing for more roles in a mining op. Please, if you don't like mining, stop. I don't see why people who don't like doing it anyway should lower the profits for those who do.

As for your second point... I'm honestly not sure what your point is. Demand will be constant, supply will fall, prices will rise, profits for miners will not change dramatically seems to be what I make of it. CCP injecting inflation doesn't seem to be particularly relevant to the argument at hand.

Your last point seems to have nothing at all to do with what I actually said... CCP artificially changing the market may be applicable if they feel the economy is going in the wrong direction, but it seems a very radical thing to do for such a small problem. Better for them to indirectly affect gameplay to make it more palatable to mine in low sec. They speak after all of making the choicest ores hardest to find, but since the market determines what ores are worth the most, they will have to do some real homework for it to work.


shady trader
Posted - 2007.05.04 22:40:00 - [11]
 

There is another way of doing it using the gang features.

Have a tank equiped scout (macro'ed search and warp? )with the leadership skills maxed. it finds the roids and warps to it, the rest just gang warp to it after say 2 minutes of the scout being sent out (to provide search and travel time). If they get droped at a distance just have that class of ship on the overview (everytihng deselected) so the scout is always in the same position and select approuch or obit at 200m so alway protected by the defender and in range of the cans. Then after a set time have the macro change the overview to the rocks it needs.

result macro'ed ships in position with a defender in place. Plus the get enhanced mining and protection from the gang skills. The macros will have to be upgraded, however this happens after every major patch (the day can flagging came out and snow balls were deadly to macros, the day after most had updated)

The only thing that might slow them down is some sort of sensor ghosts or objects getting in the way. Something a living player could recognise but would be hard for a machine to identify.

The devs plans to remove the GTC and replace it with direct isk for time (some else pays for your play time in return for your isk) will help a little.

Also I think banning any one caught buying ISK (both account, credit cards and contact details based).

Vivus Mors
Posted - 2007.05.05 04:49:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Ishma Nelass
[Ö]Please, if you don't like mining, stop. I don't see why people who don't like doing it anyway should lower the profits for those who do.


For heavenís sake, being honest about the experience is hardly subtracting from it. If you disagree with the assessment that mining is tedious, then youíre simply not being honest with yourself about it. That being said however, take a look at my links in the prior post, I would be willing to wager there are few, if any, in the entire game that are more staunch advocates of mining, improvements to it, and over all improving how itís done (even if not 1 single isk more is made in the process). So don't presume to tell me whether and how I should voice my support.

Originally by: Ishma Nelass
[Ö] CCP injecting inflation doesn't seem to be particularly relevant to the argument at hand.


Actually, profits for miners will change dramatically, thatís what inflation does, however they wonít change in the way you would think they would. Certainly the ďisk numberĒ would go up; however the cost of everything else would rise faster than any possible ďincreaseĒ in their take-home isk, so if anything miners will end up worse off since the volume they can mine wonít change, meanwhile their expenses will only increase and at a higher rate than their marginal increase of income.

CCP injecting inflation is an incredibly relevant argument, because it would affect every single person in all of EVE, not just the miners. Every single thing that is manufactured, reprocessed, or even insured/lost will be directly affected when costs go up, yet demand goes down. The economy stagnates because spending slows since everything costs more thus people can buy less. As a direct result, while unit-per-unit a miner may supposedly make ďmoreĒ their ability to sell will be stunted, and as mentioned before, even when they do sell through, everything they want to buy is now more expensive so if anything they are worse off than they were before, and all because of artificially induced inflation.

This is all rudimentary economics, proven time and time again in the real world as well as in the virtual world.

Originally by: Ishma Nelass
[Ö] CCP artificially changing the market may be applicable if they feel the economy is going in the wrong direction, but it seems a very radical thing to do for such a small problem. [Ö]


Indeed, it does seem ďvery radicalĒ to do such a thing for something that isnít broken as-it-is. It will however take the economy in the grossly wrong direction if they think itís going to make matters better by wasting time in an effort to stall macros which wonít have even the slightest effect on them; however it will unnecessarily strain the markets.

If CCP wants people to go into low sec that donít already want to go, there is only one way to do it, close down empire. Itís exactly the same situation as in real life, you want a cashmere sweater, but donít want to go all the way to the Cashmere region? Well, you pay someone to package it, ship it, and retail it for you to come into the store and pick one out. The same holds true in EVE, if players in Empire want something, they pay a premium to those who are ready and willing to go to low sec for that item and bring it back.

Short of closing down Empire, CCP will neverÖ no thatís not clear enoughÖ NEVER EVER get even one single person to go out to low sec space that doesnít already want to go there, so this silly argument about enticing people into low sec is irrelevant, inane, and based entirely on fantasy.

Ishma Nelass
Posted - 2007.05.05 08:06:00 - [13]
 

My dear, this is a PvP game, as I see it, the value of the profit I make depends not on the price of goods, but on the profit that everyone else makes. I am not particularly interested in the price of gods, but I am very much interested in mining as a viable proffession. As such, anything which affects all EVE players equally does not factor into this equation.

And at what point did I say anything about you voicing your support?

This change is not directed at the macros. It is above all intended to make this game a richer experience for all of us, and as a side effect it will make life difficult for the macro miners.

And this isn't about making people go into low sec, this is about the price of ore. I am not saying that it should be more profitable to mine in low sec to bring people there, although it would be nice to have more people there, it should be more profitable to mine in low sec because this was CCP's original vision, a risk/reward calculation that made sense. With the changes they are making to mining it will be even more vital that they consider this carefully, as it would be a terrible shame if the belts which are hard to find would be worth less than those that are run of the mill. If you do not see that this is a probelm... well... it is a problem plain and simple. I don't know how to explain it so that it will be easier to understand, it does not seem particularly complicated to me.

And don't presume to tell me whether or not I like to mine.

Vivus Mors
Posted - 2007.05.05 09:58:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Ishma Nelass
My dear, this is a PvP game, as I see it, the value of the profit I make depends not on the price of goods, but on the profit that everyone else makes. I am not particularly interested in the price of gods, but I am very much interested in mining as a viable proffession. As such, anything which affects all EVE players equally does not factor into this equation.

And at what point did I say anything about you voicing your support?

This change is not directed at the macros. It is above all intended to make this game a richer experience for all of us, and as a side effect it will make life difficult for the macro miners.

And this isn't about making people go into low sec, this is about the price of ore. I am not saying that it should be more profitable to mine in low sec to bring people there, although it would be nice to have more people there, it should be more profitable to mine in low sec because this was CCP's original vision, a risk/reward calculation that made sense. With the changes they are making to mining it will be even more vital that they consider this carefully, as it would be a terrible shame if the belts which are hard to find would be worth less than those that are run of the mill. If you do not see that this is a probelm... well... it is a problem plain and simple. I don't know how to explain it so that it will be easier to understand, it does not seem particularly complicated to me.

And don't presume to tell me whether or not I like to mine.


Apparently youíre reading another topic yet posting here, because everything youíre saying is not only contrary to logic, it seems youíre taking issue with things that havenít even been said.

First, I never said anything about whether YOU like to mine (mostly because itís irrelevant either way); in fact I should be the one railing on you for your presumption to tell me about my opinion towards it.

As for your apparent ďconcernĒ about profits, you say you donít value the profit you make based upon what things cost but rather the profit that others make? Thatís quite frankly asinine, you determine the value of your profits precisely by what things cost because youíre making money to BUY things, otherwise youíre spending an awful lot of time accomplishing a grand total of nothing.

Now, if you work for X about of time, yet prices of things have gone up to the point that what used to be purchased for X now costs X*1.5 or even X*2 then youíve only succeeded in loosing ground for the same amount of work invested.

Inflation is not a good thing in an encapsulated economy, just ask the former USSR. Sure, your ore will sell for more ISK, however the ISK youíre getting is worth dramatically less and everything you want to buy ends up costing ever more.

The simple problem here is that you donít understand the greater economic ramifications of attempting to ďfixĒ with what isnít broken. The one, and ONLY, time you would ever want inflation is if there is a problem with deflation (thatís the opposite of inflation you see), where the entire market is experiencing a terrible downturn in both pricing and spending and the only way to stimulate consumerism. That is nowhere even close to the case, as since day one EVE has been battling with never ending inflation, and the only things deflating are the things that have been either overpriced for a very long time anyway, or things that had more artificial scarcity provided via CCPís ďbrilliant foresightĒ which only succeeded in damaging their respective sectors and you will note that since invention that artificial scarcity has been virtually obliterated.

As per usual, leave them game economy alone and it will find its own balance, but incessantly screwing with it will only succeed in making a mess of things.

Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2007.05.05 10:17:00 - [15]
 

No these measures will not kill the macrominers.

What it will do is run off many casual gamers, those that can't play for 2 to 5 hours a sitting. It is just more time to do the same stuff, and thus I don't think casual gamers will find much benefit in the game.

lordopic
Posted - 2007.05.05 10:51:00 - [16]
 

Sorry nood question time.

What is a macro miner? ( so I can avoid doing it and getting my arse handed to me on plate )

Vivus Mors
Posted - 2007.05.05 11:05:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Vivus Mors on 05/05/2007 11:05:15
a macro miner is a person who uses a means (which I will vaguely explain in a moment) to basically mine while he isn't there at the computer, thus effectively getting the benefits of mining without having to actually "do" anything for it.

now the term "macro" is very vague from what it is actually referring to as opposed to what it is considered now. A macro in the purest sense is merely a list of instructions for the computer to perform all put into a single list of operations so that you don't have to repeatedly do each step along the way.

What it has been perverted into however is little more than cheating, because some people have learned ways of making macros, external programs, and even using some peripherals to basically perform simple and repetitive tasks for the user, even if the user isn't there.

Edit: I am specifically leaving out the particular aspects of how its done, and why exactly CCP's efforts to monkey with things will have absolutely no effect what so ever, and will likely be defeated within hours if not minutes of being released on the singularity, much less tranquility. The reason being is that those who know even a little about making macros, or better still programming, can easily figure out for themselves how such efforts will be defeated. What needs to be done is CCP has to actually exert the effort necessary to enforce their rules, not cripple the game in the vain hopes of thwarting an enemy that will simply circumvent the defense before it can even see the light of day.

Ishma Nelass
Posted - 2007.05.05 11:35:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Ishma Nelass on 05/05/2007 11:42:34
Originally by: Vivus Mors
First, I never said anything about whether YOU like to mine (mostly because itís irrelevant either way); in fact I should be the one railing on you for your presumption to tell me about my opinion towards it.
Originally by: Vivus Mors
If you disagree with the assessment that mining is tedious, then youíre simply not being honest with yourself about it.


I didn't tell you that you thought mining was tedious, you did. You also told me that I find mining tedious...

Now you go on to tell why I want to earn isk? How could you possibly know? Earning ISK can also be a way to battle other players. In a longer, drawn-out war, the only thing that matters - well, not the only thing - is who earns more money. This is an exciting way to play the game as well. As for stuff, well, if I need something I can't afford, I save up for it. I don't really care how long it takes, you see I like playing EVE. And I predict that the change is going to make it more interesting.

The economic implications of the change can't be particularly dramatic. People will continue to mine minerals, and people will continue to buy minerals. As for the details... who cares? They're really rather moot. What is important is gameplay, and gameplay will be improved a lot.

When I speak of economic implications, I only consider them in terms of how they will affect gameplay.

[EDIT] Anyway, if everyhting costs more by the same coefficient, then nothing has changed has it? Everyone earns more and everyone pays more. The only people who stand to lose are the ISK hoarders.

And the people who get the injected money, but who cares about them; they're the ones causing the inflation.

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2007.05.05 13:40:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: lordopic
Sorry nood question time.

What is a macro miner? ( so I can avoid doing it and getting my arse handed to me on plate )


You will find two general meanings for the word, one is more strict than the other.

The strict definition is, those that use a third party program/means to automate game play.

The more loose but more often used definition is, those that collect in-game resources to make ISK, which they then sell for real world currency on ebay or other such sites.

Vivus Mors
Posted - 2007.05.05 15:03:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Vivus Mors on 05/05/2007 15:00:01
Originally by: Ishma Nelass
Edited by: Ishma Nelass on 05/05/2007 11:42:34
Originally by: Vivus Mors
First, I never said anything about whether YOU like to mine (mostly because itís irrelevant either way); in fact I should be the one railing on you for your presumption to tell me about my opinion towards it.
Originally by: Vivus Mors
If you disagree with the assessment that mining is tedious, then youíre simply not being honest with yourself about it.


I didn't tell you that you thought mining was tedious, you did. You also told me that I find mining tedious...


You do realize that you just took a RHETORICAL QUESTION, and answered it. That alone should be reason enough for you not take it unbelievably out of context, but here you are, and you did. Youíre being contrary for no other reason than you want to make an issue out of something you misunderstood.

Originally by: Ishma Nelass
Now you go on to tell why I want to earn isk? How could you possibly know? Earning ISK can also be a way to battle other players. In a longer, drawn-out war, the only thing that matters - well, not the only thing - is who earns more money. This is an exciting way to play the game as well. As for stuff, well, if I need something I can't afford, I save up for it. I don't really care how long it takes, you see I like playing EVE. And I predict that the change is going to make it more interesting.


As a matter of fact I do know, because otherwise you wouldnít be in here trying to make an asinine argument about exactly the earning of ISK through mining. If youíre going to take a position, donít cut your own knees off while youíre making it and supposedly pretending like you donít care, yet all the while arguing. You canít care about the argument, and yet not care about the implications of it at the same time, the two are mutually exclusive.

Originally by: Ishma Nelass
The economic implications of the change can't be particularly dramatic. People will continue to mine minerals, and people will continue to buy minerals. As for the details... who cares? They're really rather moot. What is important is gameplay, and gameplay will be improved a lot.


Actually, the economic implications are significant, as I have already proven and you simply canít seem to comprehend.

Originally by: Ishma Nelass
When I speak of economic implications, I only consider them in terms of how they will affect gameplay.

[EDIT] Anyway, if everyhting costs more by the same coefficient, then nothing has changed has it? Everyone earns more and everyone pays more. The only people who stand to lose are the ISK hoarders.

And the people who get the injected money, but who cares about them; they're the ones causing the inflation.


When you speak of economic implications, you donít consider anything apparently, because if you had you would think of the larger picture. First off, everyone does NOT earn more, but everyone will PAY more. More over, even those getting paid more are still loosing because the cost of thing going up will surpass any modicum of increase in their income because there are multiple hands on many products, and each set of hands requires payment, however no one is simply going to be the noble soul and ďeatĒ the rising costs to their business, they will pass them along (just like every real business) to their customer.

Certainly if EVERYTHING changes by the same percentage (coefficient implies multiplicative, which this isnít) then there would be little effect, however, as already demonstrated, there would not be parity, in fact it would be a direct destabilization of one sector in relation to the others, which is precisely opposite of your hypothetical.

Yet again, you can fall back to REAL economics for proof and numerous examples in real life of precisely what Iím saying. However, I defy anyone to find any real-world parallel to the nonsense you're supporting.

Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
Posted - 2007.05.05 15:39:00 - [21]
 

Simple break down of time increase for mining:

Veldspar, Scordite
1) Move ship to planet instead of belt - 0 increased time as you would have been in warp anyways
2) Scan for belts - Increased time (unknown exactly)
3) Fly to belt, start mining - Increased time of warp and alignment, plus probably multiple warps as most barges can't reach distant belts already thus miners focus on belts close to stations

Other Ores
1) Undock probe ship - Mining ships can't mount probe launchers
2) Scan for belts - 10 minutes base to use probes that can detect static structures
3) Warp to new belt, drop bookmark in correct place - First trip
4) Warp back to station - increased time of warp
5) Change ships - 30 seconds
6) Undock barge - increased time of undock
7) Warp to belt - increased time
8) Finally actually mining, up to 13 minutes after initial start

That 15 minutes is worth about 786k in ore to a newish miner in a Retriever. Already the casual player is down noticeably.

Now we don't have some other details:
1) How often will the belts "move"
2) "Deadspace" effects
3) Belt sizes

If the belts move once a day, you have the above time sink everytime you come home from work. For a player that mines one or two hours a night that will seriously cut into their profits. For a macro that is on 22/7 it will have minimal impact

"Deadspace" areas (server instancing, great for server lag, bad time sink) will increase those times above by up to 3 minutes to jump (since CCP loves jumpgates and barges suck at aligning) PLUS travel time to get to the location on the belt you want to go. Upwards of 10minutes or more EVERYTIME you jump to the belt. Since we won't get larger barge holds or secure cans, that option would basically say "Don't mine unless you have a 2nd account to haul with". It would kill casual player mining, but have minimal effect on macros as the hauler would jsut be controlled by a human while the miners were macros

((continued))

Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
Posted - 2007.05.05 15:56:00 - [22]
 

((continued))
Belt sizes. If they keep belt and asteroid sizes like they are then you will have to move belts every 3 hours or so. Add the above time sinks to each time.

Skills: Most mining characters do NOT have the skills to use a probe launcher, meaning additional training time. No new miner has them, meaning that they are stuck mining Veld or Scordite. Add 4-5 days of training time, meaning your new miner is going to take an additional week of time to get into production. Good for anti-macro in the short run, also hard on new PCs.

What I see happening:
1) "Casual" miners that log in for an hour or two a night will mine Veld/Scor or just not bother. Many will just slowly play less and less, then eventually quit. Reduction of Ore on the market, reduction of player base.

2) With the reductino of Ore, prices of everything, including ships, will rise.

3) Nerf to new missions (no bounties, moving best missions to lowsec) will decrease the amount of ISK that players can make, hence decrease how much they can already buy.

4) Removal of GTC -> ISK conversion will again decrease the amount of ISK someone can have, decreasing how much they can buy.

The cost of production will go up, the amount of ISK you have will decrease. Eventually it will settle out and you will have fewer ships being built, replacing blown up BBs with BCs, destroyed BCs with cruisers, etc as it will be harder to buy the bigger ships. T2 market will crash as teh conbination of invention plus less ISK will make the prices drop if they want sales. Eventually it will be a poorer but stable EvE, EXCEPT:

1) LArger corps in 0.0 will be completely uneffected because they already make most of their own stuff and have access to belts/complexess they can farm for their own parts and ore.

2) Newer players and small corps in Empire will be poorer and have more difficulties even thinkng about PvP. Blowing up a ship will HURT. Many will quit or not get to the point of going to 0.0. Mostly effected will be the characters in the 3-4 month range that are just starting to look at level 4 missions or PvP; they won't have the cash to replace their new BB.

3) More people banned for illegal ISK sales as Macros and desperate players look for ways around the system.

4) Fewer "poor" players. Less ISK from bounties, less ore from mining and the extra time it takes, buyers having less ISK will all mean it is harder to get the ISK needed to buy a GTC.

I see this making EvE even more of a niche game, especially since those that already HAVE the ISK will still have it, making them effectively richer and increasing their buying power. Those that have access to the resources will be richer as they can provide for themselves. Empire players will be poorer, as will LowSec pirates that feed on them.

Ishma Nelass
Posted - 2007.05.05 20:39:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Ishma Nelass on 05/05/2007 20:38:02
Edited by: Ishma Nelass on 05/05/2007 20:36:12
"...the same percentage (coefficient implies multiplicative, which this isnít)..."

Honestly sweetie, what on earth are you talking about? Percentage is merely a different form of notion to multiplication. a coefficient of 1.5 and increase of 50% are mathematically identical.

And where did this about rhetorical question come from? I didn't mean to make a big deal about assuming people have a certain opinion, but you whined about it and at the same time insisted on it yourself. Rhetorical question? A rhetorical question has to be a question. Where is the question in this:

Quote:
For heavenís sake, being honest about the experience is hardly subtracting from it. If you disagree with the assessment that mining is tedious, then youíre simply not being honest with yourself about it. That being said however, take a look at my links in the prior post, I would be willing to wager there are few, if any, in the entire game that are more staunch advocates of mining, improvements to it, and over all improving how itís done (even if not 1 single isk more is made in the process). So don't presume to tell me whether and how I should voice my support.


There, paragraph posted in full so as not to take it out of context. I don't see how I can interpret it as saying anything other than that I find mining tedious, and I'm in denial over it.


And you insist on treating EVE as if it was a real world economy. It is not. ISK is not money, nobody kills over it, nobody depeds on it for survival, nobodys pension is going to get ruined by inflation. all the ISK, all the minerals and all the modules in EVE belong to us, the players. As such, in the big picture, nothing ever gets more expensive, except relative to other things. Mining may become more profitable than missioning, or the other way around, but in the end, if prices go up that means that players are paying players more money.

So what does inflation mean then? if - as you say - "people spend more [isk] to receive less [modules/ships]" (remember that this isn't food or a roof over our heads we're talking about)? It means that maybe you can't afford to fit your ship with faction mods when you PvP. ****e! you'll get pwned. Oh wait... neither can your opponent. So everything is fine.

Honestly, relax. It isn't CCPs goal to make an idyllic economy where everyone is rich and can afford everything. That is a real-world goal. In EVE, we don't want elysium. If we did, we'd play viva pinata! instead.

Oh, and stop telling me why I want ISK. As stated, this is a game. We all play it for fun, and we all extract fun in different ways. You're a corp leader? Fair enough. You're a griefer? Fair enough. You're a scammer? A troll? A miner? A pirate? A carebear? All good. Maybe having lots of Isk just does it for me, or maybe I'm trying to outmine my opponents. Whatever. Obviously you like your modules, that's fine by me. But now this is getting too far off topic, even for me.


So. Back on topic. Analyys: you make a lot of sense, but as you say, there is a lot we don't know, so making any advanced calculations at the moment will be prety fruitless. Depending on the ease with which one can find a belt of a given value, density and size, you're calculation could shift any which way. Also, considering this enormous change CCP are making, is it so far fetched that they might change the attibutes of the various mining modules?

As for the added skill requirements... well, EVE is all about teamplay after all. Getting some basic astrometrics up ons doesn't take long, but if you want to make the great profits, you work in a group with specialized roles. I certainly don't mind seeing the mining profession get more of this. It is EVE after all.

The same goes for the casual miner... you really can't expect to make great profits being on one hour at a time. That's just how it is. Honestly, this is a good thing

Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
Posted - 2007.05.05 23:52:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Ishma Nelass

So. Back on topic. Analyys: you make a lot of sense, but as you say, there is a lot we don't know, so making any advanced calculations at the moment will be prety fruitless. Depending on the ease with which one can find a belt of a given value, density and size, you're calculation could shift any which way. Also, considering this enormous change CCP are making, is it so far fetched that they might change the attibutes of the various mining modules?


I could well be wrong, and hope so. But considering how badly they continue to nerf missions and keep claiming there is too much money in the economy I have some dreads on this. I think they WANT to slow down mining and make it more of a time sink, otherwise they would have given us barges with decent sized holds and bigger secure cans a long time ago.
Quote:


As for the added skill requirements... well, EVE is all about teamplay after all. Getting some basic astrometrics up ons doesn't take long, but if you want to make the great profits, you work in a group with specialized roles. I certainly don't mind seeing the mining profession get more of this. It is EVE after all.


Agreed, EvE is best with team play. But its also supposed to be a sandox where you make your own way. Right now with the lack of decent sized barges and cans you are about 60% greater efficiency runnign a second account. If they do things like gates then you will be closer to 85% with two accounts. Well, not everyone can have two accounts or a friend to help. So are we going to tell younger (since this is who will be effected most) players that they can't mine and make any ISK? Go rat or run missions?

I have ONE request from CCP. Before you make ANY change, start a character, train, buy your barge and MINE for ISK. Don't make any alterations to the system without doing it for several weeks, THEN decide its what you want. Don't do like you did for wrecks and have some lame excuse like "well, no one was running missions on teh test server so the issue didn't come up. Maybe we should have people concentrate on various parts of the game in testing". They said that, you know, as their excuse that wrecks cluttered up the mission area Rolling Eyes

Unfamed II
Caldari
NPC Corporation
Paisti Syndicate
Posted - 2007.05.05 23:53:00 - [25]
 

How about a cure for CAPITAL LETTERS IN THREAD TOPICS?

Ansuru Starlancer
UK1 Zero
Posted - 2007.05.06 01:16:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Haffrage
You people know what bookmarks are right? Unless this will be the same deadspace that sucks you into the same spot, which if it is I'll be pretty ****ed, they'll just warp on a bookmark like they do already.

If it is, warp on bookmark, then approach bookmark. The only solution to macros is removing them player by player or removing their tools, neither of which is easy and both are in the grey areas of "right" and "wrong."


I, too, laugh at those who've forgotten the myriad uses of bookmarks since Z-day.

Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
Posted - 2007.05.06 01:44:00 - [27]
 

Well ive been with the original thread where people seem to skip the part about the ship's own scanner getting upgraded to handel finding the sites that will be known as ecounters seperated into two flavors of the roid belts and the npc mini deadspace complex.

The dev stated it would go like this, warp to planet, hit scan, wait 30 seconds, get results, go have fun.

He also mentioned this would reduce lag (servers no longer having to keep up with couple thousands of rocks how big they are and thier growth rates ect ect)

Roids Belts would have equal chance of being found based on the area and security no skills involved, same for the mini encounters.

This also opens up a whole can of worms as the belts themeselves can receive a deadspace dugeon treatment that can be similar to dead space complexes found though current exploration with traps triggers and timers and good bit of unpredictability making it not so easy for macroers. For example macro miner goes out starts mining roids, shots one roid thats actually a drones hive, drones keep sending more drones out to kill him and his drones (new npc content now have anti drone squadrons that will fly over 120kms just to kill your drones even though your 5kms away from them and trying to shoot them). Simple changes would make a macroers life alot harder just because of littlethings like that. Exploding ore clouds, patrols, ect ect can all be authored into the belt to make macromining a harder profession to be good at.

Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
Posted - 2007.05.06 03:14:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Nova Fox
Well ive been with the original thread where people seem to skip the part about the ship's own scanner getting upgraded to handel finding the sites that will be known as ecounters seperated into two flavors of the roid belts and the npc mini deadspace complex.

The dev stated it would go like this, warp to planet, hit scan, wait 30 seconds, get results, go have fun.

He also mentioned this would reduce lag (servers no longer having to keep up with couple thousands of rocks how big they are and thier growth rates ect ect)

Roids Belts would have equal chance of being found based on the area and security no skills involved, same for the mini encounters.

This also opens up a whole can of worms as the belts themeselves can receive a deadspace dugeon treatment that can be similar to dead space complexes found though current exploration with traps triggers and timers and good bit of unpredictability making it not so easy for macroers. For example macro miner goes out starts mining roids, shots one roid thats actually a drones hive, drones keep sending more drones out to kill him and his drones (new npc content now have anti drone squadrons that will fly over 120kms just to kill your drones even though your 5kms away from them and trying to shoot them). Simple changes would make a macroers life alot harder just because of littlethings like that. Exploding ore clouds, patrols, ect ect can all be authored into the belt to make macromining a harder profession to be good at.


Thing is all this you have mentioned will **** off normal players and they will quit.

Macros won't quit because there will always be a market (more so if the stuff isn't being provided by legitimate players) and they aren't playing for "fun".

Punitive action and traps will foster more macros, not less.

Vivus Mors
Posted - 2007.05.06 05:36:00 - [29]
 

Edited by: Vivus Mors on 06/05/2007 05:33:38
Hmmm... Ishma Nelass, using simple words that youíve used, so that hopefully you will at least understand that much, I'll break this down simply so that even you can comprehend:

[...] You're [...] A troll [...]

Rather than actually contending the argument and oooo, I don't know, proving the economics of the situation I've long since established as some how incorrect (which they arenít), you want to go either into semantics or say "well it's all about how I feel", and neither of which have any relevance in any way, shape, form, or fashion.

Your ďfeelingsĒ arenít part of this, and your misinterpretation is only showing that you canít stand and argue the subject, but rather your only hope is to distract from the fact that you have absolutely no comprehension of the macroeconomic (no pun intended) ramifications of what youíve suggested and how completely asinine your position has become.

If you want to suggest that I am wrong, then be a man about it and grow a spine where that yellow streak is currently so prominent. Prove my economics wrong, and by association every single fact of economic truths throughout the ages, because regardless of what you SAY here, what you say and what people are actually going to do are quite separate and the only thing that ever matters is what people actually DO, regardless of what they have said.

You clearly arenít going to muster the courage necessary to contend mano-a-mano because the only important component of the conversation is the economics, which you know you have absolutely no foothold in the discussion of, and every time you set a toe into the ring I happily smash it with a hammer of actual proof and irrefutable fact.

Either discuss the matter at hand, and stop trying to distract from it like a troll, or just be quiet.

Ishma Nelass
Posted - 2007.05.06 08:53:00 - [30]
 

Please refrain from the ad hominem my dear and asnwer the actual core of the question which you have been avoiding:

Why is inflation and a destabilized economy a bad thing? How will it detract from mine/your's/the rest of the player base's game experience?

You see, this is very much about feelings. Feelings are really the only thing that are fundamentally relevant, since this is a game which strives to entertain. As I have stated, the economy is only relevant with reference to our experience of the game.


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only