open All Channels
seplocked Market Discussions
blankseplocked 40% of the mineral market comes from loot
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 ... : last (21)

Author Topic

Gaogan
Gallente
Solar Storm
Sev3rance
Posted - 2009.03.22 20:00:00 - [391]
 

Edited by: Gaogan on 22/03/2009 20:08:53
Originally by: Venkul Mul

More money don't enter the system but less material enter it, so the relative value of material increase and the market price increase, so you have an increase in prices, i.e. inflation.



And this is exactly the effect that is desired here: mineral prices need to increase to restore mining as a profitable activity. Especially on the mid and high end minerals.

Just getting rid of the T1 loot might cause a bit too much inflation mainly from the reduction of trit it produces, which is why some more trit needs added to the non veldspar ores so that miners can produce enough to keep things balanced.

Originally by: Janus Nightmare

I see no reason at all to change the loot drops or yields from rats. The argument seems to be that miners want to make more money from mining minerals. Always understandable, but right now, the market doesn't demand more mined minerals. The easiest option is to adapt and adjust your playing strategy to fit the demands of the game. It seems silly to me to adjust the game to fit your playing strategy.


No you totally missed the argument completely. If you can't be bothered to read and understand it, don't bother posting.


Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2009.03.22 21:07:00 - [392]
 

Originally by: Gaogan
Edited by: Gaogan on 22/03/2009 20:08:53
Originally by: Venkul Mul

More money don't enter the system but less material enter it, so the relative value of material increase and the market price increase, so you have an increase in prices, i.e. inflation.



And this is exactly the effect that is desired here: mineral prices need to increase to restore mining as a profitable activity. Especially on the mid and high end minerals.

Just getting rid of the T1 loot might cause a bit too much inflation mainly from the reduction of trit it produces, which is why some more trit needs added to the non veldspar ores so that miners can produce enough to keep things balanced.



It will not be only an increase in mineral prices, it will be a increase in price across the board.

You are attempting to cure a imbalance generated by the fact that a way larger number of people do mission than mining removing loot (and so minerals) from missions, hoping that that will move more people to mining.

The most probable result is that mission runners will stop looting and only speed run missions.

So you will have more isk entering the system (speed running generate only isk) while only a small number of people take up mining.

Minerals price will rise, and with them all the player produced items in EVE.

You can argue that a lot of people will shift to mining, and it will be even possible, but only if mining returns go really up, about doubling the isk/hour you get mining.

But that doubling would move straight in all item production, with a doubling of almost all T1 items (removed by loot drops) and ships and a sensible increase in T2 prices too.

At that point people will refine almost all named loot to fuel mineral requirement and again we will have large percentage of minerals produced by looting.

At the same time miners would be getting x2 what they were getting before, but paying most things x2 too.

Changing missions in a big way will probably have little or effect on the real miners income and little effect on the number of players mining. A change in how mining work, making it more interesting would have a larger impact.

So long as there is a larger number of players mission running than mining, the largest mineral faucet will be mission running, not mining.

If the people running missions are x3 times the people mining, even getting only 50% of the minerals a miner get every hour, together all the mission runners get x1,5 times the minerals that all the miners get in the same time.

Sasha Kiki
Posted - 2009.03.23 00:47:00 - [393]
 

being conservative, level 4s supposedly give 20+mill isk/hr. in high sec.

mining can't even come close.

mining needs to be buffed.

Joss Sparq
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2009.03.23 01:16:00 - [394]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul
The most probable result is that mission runners will stop looting and only speed run missions.

So you will have more isk entering the system (speed running generate only isk)

I would think that would possibly reduce the amount of ISK entering the economy from Missions, rather than increase it. I'm under the impression that decreasing mission completion times reduces the payouts of individual missions. If it doesn't reduce the ISK coming in, then I suspect that it won't dramatically increase the ISK being generated.

Joss Sparq
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2009.03.23 02:12:00 - [395]
 

Originally by: Volar Kang
I think mining needs to be more fun or more interesting and also more safe. Many people leave mining after a bad experience, can-flipping or ore theft. People can not safely solo-mine in null sec, it only takes one pirate with a scrambler and your 100mill hulk is dead in space.

On the flip side, mission running and ratting produce more money per hour than most mining. A person can do both of these solo and have little fear of losing their ship. A person can also do these activities in a ship that costs much less than the 100mill hulk.


I think your opinions are horrible - though I don't wish for you to take personal offence to my saying it like that.

It should be common knowledge that EVE is intended to be a harsh environment - this is why so many trolls suggest some players should (to paraphrase) "return to playing Hello Kitty Online", they're not saying it just because they're a waste of precious breathing air.

Although, the people who leave after one bad experience aren't (in my opinion) much better than those who troll them.

Mining does not need to be safer - it is just about as safe as it can be, compared to anything else in the game. If you believe a particular task is hazardous, then you should practice some risk management.

Just because a Hulk may be the best mining vessel in terms of performance, there isn't any practical barrier to your using a significantly cheaper ship such as a Covetor instead. In this example, you trade some performance in order to decrease the impact of losing the ship. Alternatively, don't mine solo!

Learn to manage the risks involved. Many, many people run their Missions in a Raven Navy Issue - these still cost twice as much as a Hulk on Contracts.

I used to run missions in several billion ISK of Nightmare and fittings. It was entirely possible that I could have been ganked in High Security space while flying that ship - I wouldn't be the first. I could afford to choose between a single battleship and fittings and roughly thirty to forty elite mining barges with fittings when it came to making my ISK. I wasn't forced to fly that Battleship, I evaluated the risks and made my decision based on my assessment and my comfort levels.

When my client crashed as I warped into the mission and my Nightmare was destroyed, I wasn't too upset because I had forseen this possibility and was prepared for it ...

... I hung myself.

But seriously, everything in EVE is dangerous, there are a lot of variables involved but it is only natural that it is relatively more dangerous to do anything in 0.0 space compared to High (or even Low) Security space. That must be expected.

Anyway, who says the hypothetical pirate with the scrambler is flying something the drones launched from your Hulk won't be able to kill or chase off?

Kazzac Elentria
Posted - 2009.03.23 05:11:00 - [396]
 

Originally by: Sasha Kiki
being conservative, level 4s supposedly give 20+mill isk/hr. in high sec.

mining can't even come close.

mining needs to be buffed.


Just to reiterate since it's gotten lost amongst the masses.

For mining to get a buff, missioning needs a nerf.

Like a stuck on band aid old infected band aid, its gotta get ripped off if the wound is gonna heal. Someone has gotta feel the pain for years of system and balance neglect.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2009.03.23 12:33:00 - [397]
 

Originally by: Joss Sparq
Originally by: Venkul Mul
The most probable result is that mission runners will stop looting and only speed run missions.

So you will have more isk entering the system (speed running generate only isk)

I would think that would possibly reduce the amount of ISK entering the economy from Missions, rather than increase it. I'm under the impression that decreasing mission completion times reduces the payouts of individual missions. If it doesn't reduce the ISK coming in, then I suspect that it won't dramatically increase the ISK being generated.


Mission completion pay and bonus will decrease, but the bounties are fixed.

Players will kill more NPC, so get more bounties and more cash.

Probably the total isk/hour included what can be got selling the loot would decrease a little, but the straight isk will increase.


Midas Man
Caldari
Dzark Innovations
Posted - 2009.03.23 13:26:00 - [398]
 

Edited by: Midas Man on 23/03/2009 13:31:33
Edited by: Midas Man on 23/03/2009 13:27:59
Originally by: Joss Sparq

I would think that would possibly reduce the amount of ISK entering the economy from Missions, rather than increase it. I'm under the impression that decreasing mission completion times reduces the payouts of individual missions. If it doesn't reduce the ISK coming in, then I suspect that it won't dramatically increase the ISK being generated.


Player 1 (1 mission) - mission pay (Inc bonus) 5 mil
- Bounties 5 mil
- Loot 15mil

Player 2 (2 mission) - Mission Pay (Inc Bonus) 10mil
- Bounties 10mil

In this simplified example we can see that the mission runner will see a decrease in total pay, but because isk generated by the loot comes from other player we see Twice as much isk coming into the system.

This would be very bad.



editted to add bounties
2nd edit to fix quote error

Volar Kang
Gallente
Ragged Rock Industries
Posted - 2009.03.23 13:44:00 - [399]
 

Dont know if this has been mentioned yet but what about the Drone regions? When they opened up, was there a rise in minerals from loot? Would like to see if reprocessing drone minerals is counted as loot reprocessing. If it is, I would suspect that had avery large impact.

Dzil
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District
Posted - 2009.03.23 14:37:00 - [400]
 

Originally by: Sasha Kiki
being conservative, level 4s supposedly give 20+mill isk/hr. in high sec.

mining can't even come close.

mining needs to be buffed.


The problem is you're comparing the farming of instanced missions, which respawn to the player's whim, with persistent mining fields, which only respawn at DT and do so often slower than the demand to reap them.

Mining missions need buffed:

When you go on a combat mission, you come back with an asston of extra minerals from the loot.

When you go on a mining mission, you get near 0 extra minerals from the loot. You might have a frigate show up and drop some rockets.

Solution:
Either have mission rocks give some rocks with the mission specific ore, or have the agents include a chunk of ore as the reward.






Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2009.03.23 14:52:00 - [401]
 

Page 3.

The problem is that we are missing a lot of data.

How many miners vs mission runners+ratters vs drone ratters?

How near to max high sec production is the quantity of tritanium mined?

How large is the quantity of loot composed by modules build for mineral compression?

How large is the quantity of minerals reprocessed from NPC orders (again they fall under the loot column)?

Hopefully LaVista has got some information from CCP about that in the most recent meeting and will share them.


Originally by: CCP Chronotis
To give more precise data as the 40% was a figure I used as an overall average was 'of the top of my head' during the meeting taken from the data below.

This was the one month split for all items reprocessed measured mid-august to mid-september 2008.

|| Mineral || Ore% || Loot% || Drone Compounds% ||
||-----------||------||-------||------------------||
|| Tritanium || 46% || 43% || 11% ||
|| Pyerite || 29% || 60% || 10% ||
|| Mexallon || 30% || 59% || 11% ||
|| Isogen || 21% || 56% || 23% ||
|| Nocxium || 18% || 32% || 51% ||
|| Zydrine || 43% || 18% || 40% ||
|| Megacyte || 44% || 39% || 16% ||
|| Morphite || 77% || 1% || 22% ||

* Ore is minerals from the asteroid ores
* loot is modules, ships, charges, drones for example.
* drone compounds are loot items from rogue drones

However, whatever conclusion you draw from those stats, be careful as it does not tell you much really such as how many people were mining or running missions. The number of people running missions is massive compared to number of miners and the source per person much lower overall however it is a large diffuse source. It is a similar story for anytime a player encounters the rogue drones.

The ongoing discussion we are having internally is really around the point of to what degree a specialist profession like mining should be adversely affected by another career path where this forms only one part of their total reward/income pool.

Nothing is happening on this front for Apocrypha but feel free to discuss this and I'll keep tabs on discussion as it is an interesting topic.

Irish Blend
Posted - 2009.03.23 20:36:00 - [402]
 

SOmepeople want to mine, regardless of how well they do it, or other things they could be doing. Thats a play style decision. Nothing you do should alter their ability to play an MMO in their playstyle unless it hinders others players enjoying the game.

There are many different layers of balance: social, economic (from players perspective), economic (from CCP from subscribers, churn rates, new players, and multiple account customers), economic (in game), coin sinks and time sinks.

If you think any issue is a 2 sided puzzle, your missing the larger picture.
People pay to play EVE because it has something fun in it for them. People who mine don't want minerals to drop, they want mining to be kind. And so one for every group. Balance will never make everyone happy.


Hexxx
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.03.23 20:40:00 - [403]
 

Originally by: Irish Blend
SOmepeople want to mine, regardless of how well they do it, or other things they could be doing. Thats a play style decision. Nothing you do should alter their ability to play an MMO in their playstyle unless it hinders others players enjoying the game.

There are many different layers of balance: social, economic (from players perspective), economic (from CCP from subscribers, churn rates, new players, and multiple account customers), economic (in game), coin sinks and time sinks.

If you think any issue is a 2 sided puzzle, your missing the larger picture.
People pay to play EVE because it has something fun in it for them. People who mine don't want minerals to drop, they want mining to be kind. And so one for every group. Balance will never make everyone happy.




You kind of surprised me...you raise a number of great points here that are (in my opinion) spot on. Please post in this style more often. Very Happy

Ahro Thariori
Posted - 2009.03.24 00:32:00 - [404]
 

Originally by: Irish Blend
SOmepeople want to mine, regardless of how well they do it, or other things they could be doing. Thats a play style decision. Nothing you do should alter their ability to play an MMO in their playstyle unless it hinders others players enjoying the game.

There are many different layers of balance: social, economic (from players perspective), economic (from CCP from subscribers, churn rates, new players, and multiple account customers), economic (in game), coin sinks and time sinks.

If you think any issue is a 2 sided puzzle, your missing the larger picture.
People pay to play EVE because it has something fun in it for them. People who mine don't want minerals to drop, they want mining to be kind. And so one for every group. Balance will never make everyone happy.


I'm convinced so far, but what is your conclusion? That we shouldn't strive for balance because there is no such thing - or that we should strive for it ignoring the nay-sayers because there will always be those?

Kifor Hellhund
Posted - 2009.03.24 01:42:00 - [405]
 

Edited by: Kifor Hellhund on 24/03/2009 01:44:05
Edited by: Kifor Hellhund on 24/03/2009 01:43:26
If all you do is mine you're not even going to come close to a missioner. The 20m an hour is doable by a character with about 4m skp and a CNR. Experienced missioners in golems/paladins etc can haul in 30m-40m an hour regularly in hisec.

The solution is to increase the mineral costs of ammunition significantly. Essentially the game needs more consumables to be used in missions, but has to balance this against the fact that consumables can get annoying really really fast.

Alternatively new industrial skills could be added with high mining skill prereqs giving miners a large advantage in industry. However this could be self defeating Sad

Gaogan
Gallente
Solar Storm
Sev3rance
Posted - 2009.03.24 02:58:00 - [406]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul

It will not be only an increase in mineral prices, it will be a increase in price across the board.

You are attempting to cure a imbalance generated by the fact that a way larger number of people do mission than mining removing loot (and so minerals) from missions, hoping that that will move more people to mining.


No, I am attempting to fix the imbalance caused by the mineral sources being biased towards the mid end minerals causing higher end ore to be worth less than low end ore. If everyone CHOSE to run missions instead of mine, then mineral prices SHOULD go up. Supply, and demand. The system is supposed to regulate itself because if people tend to do what earns them the most, so if mining becomes more profitable, more people will do it. Once it reaches equalibrium it will pay about as much as missioning does, like it used to.

Originally by: Venkul Mul

You can argue that a lot of people will shift to mining, and it will be even possible, but only if mining returns go really up, about doubling the isk/hour you get mining.

But that doubling would move straight in all item production, with a doubling of almost all T1 items (removed by loot drops) and ships and a sensible increase in T2 prices too.

At that point people will refine almost all named loot to fuel mineral requirement and again we will have large percentage of minerals produced by looting.


Then either mineral yields across the board are too low, or mission payouts are too high.

Originally by: Venkul Mul

At the same time miners would be getting x2 what they were getting before, but paying most things x2 too.


What makes you think this is not happening NOW? Since loot does not produce enough trit, miners have to mine a lot of veld to make up for it, so trit prices continue to climb. Going by your theory, it will continue to rise until mining veld can make you 20 mil an hour, or trit will be about 8 isk a unit. The difference is I'm trying to get the higher mining payouts back to mining higher end ores instead of veld.

Originally by: Venkul Mul
Changing missions in a big way will probably have little or effect on the real miners income and little effect on the number of players mining. A change in how mining work, making it more interesting would have a larger impact.

So long as there is a larger number of players mission running than mining, the largest mineral faucet will be mission running, not mining.


Many people mine exactly BECAUSE it is uninteresting. The main reasons most people mission instead are:

1) Does not require specialized training
2) Pays more
3) Missions don't run out, roids do

Originally by: Venkul Mul

If the people running missions are x3 times the people mining, even getting only 50% of the minerals a miner get every hour, together all the mission runners get x1,5 times the minerals that all the miners get in the same time.



Except that they DON'T get only 50% of the minerals a miner will an hour. They get MORE. Especially iso and nocx.

Joss Sparq
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:04:00 - [407]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Joss Sparq
my stuff

Mission completion pay and bonus will decrease, but the bounties are fixed.

Players will kill more NPC, so get more bounties and more cash.

Oh, right. I see that I missed the obvious there!
Originally by: Volar Kang
Would like to see if reprocessing drone minerals is counted as loot reprocessing. If it is, I would suspect that had avery large impact.

In case you missed it (again) Venkul reposted the chart from CCP, it lists the drone compounds seperately from loot.
Originally by: Irish Blend
People who mine don't want minerals to drop, they want mining to be kind.

I like you post, my only comment being that while they want mining to be kind they should remember mining will only be kind or kinder than other options to a point - there are still inherent risks to every pursuit in EVE.

I know this comment isn't wholly related to your post, it is just that I notice people seem to forget the reality only to become very annoyed when they are reminded.

"Reminded" meaning exploded.
Originally by: Kifor Hellhund
The solution is to increase the mineral costs of ammunition significantly. Essentially the game needs more consumables to be used in missions, but has to balance this against the fact that consumables can get annoying really really fast.
Especially for people who PvP, don't forget them ...

Kazzac Elentria
Posted - 2009.03.24 03:17:00 - [408]
 

Originally by: Hexxx


You kind of surprised me...you raise a number of great points here that are (in my opinion) spot on. Please post in this style more often. Very Happy


For a minute there I had to double click on my clock in the lower right... could have sworn it was the 1st for a second

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2009.03.24 06:57:00 - [409]
 

Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
Originally by: Hexxx


You kind of surprised me...you raise a number of great points here that are (in my opinion) spot on. Please post in this style more often. Very Happy


For a minute there I had to double click on my clock in the lower right... could have sworn it was the 1st for a second

I for a second thought that maybe Irish Blend was Bjørn Lomborg. He says a lot of "smart" stuff which has no real meaning at all Razz

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2009.03.24 07:46:00 - [410]
 

Edited by: Venkul Mul on 24/03/2009 07:50:17

Originally by: Gaogan
Originally by: Venkul Mul

At the same time miners would be getting x2 what they were getting before, but paying most things x2 too.


What makes you think this is not happening NOW? Since loot does not produce enough trit, miners have to mine a lot of veld to make up for it, so trit prices continue to climb. Going by your theory, it will continue to rise until mining veld can make you 20 mil an hour, or trit will be about 8 isk a unit. The difference is I'm trying to get the higher mining payouts back to mining higher end ores instead of veld.



It is not happening now because:

1) that 40% of tritanium coming from reprocessing still keep the price in check;

2) there are still NPC sold items that create a cap for tritanium price;

3) to really change high end price you need to change the mineral requirements of ships. And why are you fixating on mission as the reason of the high end low price when the largest source is drone loot?

Originally by: Gaogan
Originally by: Venkul Mul

If the people running missions are x3 times the people mining, even getting only 50% of the minerals a miner get every hour, together all the mission runners get x1,5 times the minerals that all the miners get in the same time.



Except that they DON'T get only 50% of the minerals a miner will an hour. They get MORE. Especially iso and nocx.



Isogen 56% from NPC rats loots and general reprocessing (and we still don't know how much mineral compression items are included in that value), Nocxium 51% of from drone loot.


Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2009.03.24 10:12:00 - [411]
 

Originally by: Joss Sparq
Originally by: Venkul Mul
The most probable result is that mission runners will stop looting and only speed run missions.

So you will have more isk entering the system (speed running generate only isk)

I would think that would possibly reduce the amount of ISK entering the economy from Missions, rather than increase it. I'm under the impression that decreasing mission completion times reduces the payouts of individual missions. If it doesn't reduce the ISK coming in, then I suspect that it won't dramatically increase the ISK being generated.


That is somewhat incorrect. It is true that speedrunning decreases mission rewards - however it does nothing to bounties, and those are the major bulk of isk entering the game thru missions. Only about 10% of isk entering the system from missions is actual mission reward.

GyokZoli
Caldari
Sanctum of Citizens
Posted - 2009.03.24 11:23:00 - [412]
 

Originally by: Gaogan

No, I am attempting to fix the imbalance caused by the mineral sources being biased towards the mid end minerals causing higher end ore to be worth less than low end ore. If everyone CHOSE to run missions instead of mine, then mineral prices SHOULD go up. Supply, and demand. The system is supposed to regulate itself because if people tend to do what earns them the most, so if mining becomes more profitable, more people will do it. Once it reaches equalibrium it will pay about as much as missioning does, like it used to.


The solution is much more complex I think, and I doubt that it is easy to find.

There is a huge difference between missioning and mining.

1. With missioning you create ISK from nothing with bounties (loot is an exception). We have 2 scenario here:
a. Reduce the bounties. It looks like an option which will not have a great impact on the economy. But people will have less money to by ships & mods for pvp, therefore it may make hardcore pvp people to quit Eve since they'll have no enough income to support their pvp needs (no, they will not go and mine). Ohh and since less money will be generated, market prices will start to drop, etc.
b. Reduce or remove the loot. It would impact only a fraction of the missionrunners since not everybody is looting on missions. So for the looters it will have the same affect as in scenario a. But also the minerals on the market will be reduced, which means increased mineral prices which means more people mining, which at the end means decreased mineral prices, etc.

2. With mining, you sell ores/minerals for ISK. If you buff mining (for let's say with increased yield) more people will mine but it will reduce mineral prices in time due to higher supply. Therefore people will go back to missioning. So at the end we will end up where we began.

So if we touch mining and missioning we will not achieve the desired results. I think the solution is in changing the demand somehow. It can happen with changing the material requirements for certain ships or modules or both.

Mystafyre
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2009.03.24 11:37:00 - [413]
 

Originally by: Bad Bobby

1. Remove all T1 loot from drops. Players can make it, NPCs don't need to drop it.
This is true. T1 modules should only come from players.

skye orionis
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:21:00 - [414]
 

So, introduce more tritanium into the mission loot by making every wreck drop scrap metal as part of salvage (in addition to the other components), and so that the salvagers don't whine about having to cart it all about give them a specialist salvage ship that has a decent cargo bay, gives salvage bonuses, tractor beams range bonuses and doubles the amount of scrap recovered by salvagers. Don't make it fast, make it rely on tractor beams to do the wreck grabbing work, that'll make it less useful to ninja salvage operations.

That'll rebalance minerals and make tritium cheaper. Combine this with switch in mission loot to return more ammo, tags and commodities and the game would be a better place.

Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Spikes Chop Shop
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:04:00 - [415]
 

Originally by: skye orionis
...scrap...


just because it drops, doesn't mean it will be picked up. doesn't take long to see what's worth cargo space, and what's not.

Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:20:00 - [416]
 

Quote:

Mining does not need to be safer - it is just about as safe as it can be, compared to anything else in the game. If you believe a particular task is hazardous, then you should practice some risk management



While I don't feel so bad as miner, you forget some little details here.

- Mining is tedious and this alone would make it less practiced than missioning even if the rewards were equal.

- You say "it is just about as safe as it can be, compared to anything else in game". No, it's not to anything. You have to compare a money maker (mining) to other money makers. The first money maker coming to mind, guess what, is L4 missioning.

Let's see:

1) Speed missioning involves 1 account since the first level 1 tutorial. If you really want to reap the best benefits you can have a second account that in negligible time can use a destroyer to salvage.

Mining *sucks balls* with 1 account up to Hulks. It's slow like hell and the can is there to be emptied (and it expires). So most go for 1 hauler account (the minimum would be a Mammoth, that is far longer than the mission alt to train, not counting the need to use named expanders / rigs to really make it good. Talk about millions.

Moreover, unless you stay in super-farmed 1.0 / 0.9, a typical FOTM miner (that is, the non FOTM ones have it harder) will face:

a) First days in game Bantam => 2 mining lasers, 0 defense => rats can kill you even in high sec.
b) Osprey => 3 mining lasers, 1 missile launcher, can't really mine Omber in 0.5 as the rats will keep you busy almost till repop and you have to stop mining or you can't keep the tank up.
c) Retriever => 2 mining lasers, null tank, 0 launcher => every rat will kill you
d) Covetor: same
e) Hulk: only NOW, after many weeks and > 100M (much more if fitted well) you have a superb "solo" device.


2) Lose the rigged and T2 fitted Hulk: fricking O U C H!
The L4 missioning ship (usually T1) does not need everything tuned so high (of course it'll eventually become a navy issue super-fitted thing after a while, but the need is far less than having the best as miner) and will cost less, nor it needs T2 ammo to function.
Moreover let's look at the insurance in the two cases...

3) A missioneer will get both security standing and NPC corporation + agent standing, which in my case (industrialist miner) is expecially missed, as I either mission with HORRIBLE pilot skills and stats (ie high int and memory) OR I earn ISK as miner.

4) A missioner will naturally improve his PvP skills as they generally overlap with PvE piloting skills (i.e. gunnery). A miner gets a fat zero and his PvP will suck.

5) You are quick to tell "compared to anything else". Sure, a pirate's life is riskier.

But where is the L4 missioneer risk? Past the first mistakes while learning the cycle of agent's always-the-same missions?
What happens when the missioneer wants to go pew pew in low sec? He can get in a stealth ship or he can nano fit a frigate to escape basic camps... A miner has zillions SP to take with the wrong stats to access to the same skills.

To do FAT money the missioneer can go in a 0.5 sec system.
If it was not for tritanium (still far less gain even at the current high prices anyway) the miner would have to go directly to 0.0 with some flimsy covetor (as you say) or find someone to carry it or any other complication, with all the huge factors that surround 0.0.

So, since you preach about risk management, what is YOUR risk management? To fit the correct resist on the shields and earn the millions in high sec?

Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:22:00 - [417]
 

Quote:

I used to run missions in several billion ISK of Nightmare and fittings. It was entirely possible that I could have been ganked in High Security space while flying that ship - I wouldn't be the first.



And guess what happens if I travel back in an Indy well filled of Zydrine / Megacyte? A single T1 destroyer will kill it.
In fact, every single time I jump on my indy I am constantly, continuously, utterly scanned and locked, and I am not talking about going to Jita. Even secondary hubs like Hek are full of resourceful gankers well ready to sacrifice a 700k ship.

skye orionis
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:17:00 - [418]
 

Originally by: Jagga Spikes
Originally by: skye orionis
...scrap...


just because it drops, doesn't mean it will be picked up. doesn't take long to see what's worth cargo space, and what's not.


Ahh but what you're missing is the idea that the battleship wreck you're salvaging would drop hundreds of thousands of ISK worth of tritanium. The specialist salvage ship would come with a large enough hold to make collecting the scrap metal a viable option. Sure, if you want to stick to your speedy ninja salvager you can leave the scrap metal behind for those dedicated salvagers. That would be the Eve equivalent of the people rooting through my recycling bin for bottles and leaving the cardboard and paper behind for the big recycling trucks.

Illectroculus Defined
No Bull Ships
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:25:00 - [419]
 

Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Quote:


a) First days in game Bantam => 2 mining lasers, 0 defense => rats can kill you even in high sec.
b) Osprey => 3 mining lasers, 1 missile launcher, can't really mine Omber in 0.5 as the rats will keep you busy almost till repop and you have to stop mining or you can't keep the tank up.
c) Retriever => 2 mining lasers, null tank, 0 launcher => every rat will kill you
d) Covetor: same
e) Hulk: only NOW, after many weeks and > 100M (much more if fitted well) you have a superb "solo" device.



Ever Heard of drones?
Even in a bantam my drones were enough to protect my ship from most rats, in fact once I was in an osprey I moved to 0.5 because killing the rats added extra income and loot.

Professor Leech
Transmetropolitan
Posted - 2009.03.25 04:17:00 - [420]
 

Edited by: Professor Leech on 25/03/2009 04:21:25
Edited by: Professor Leech on 25/03/2009 04:18:44
From a simplistic view it would be better if mining, loot and drone alloys were all independent economies.

Minerals from mining for producing ships.
Module components from loot for producing modules and ammo.
Something from drone alloys for producing ????

However, this could be an unpopular move and could break the highly abused drone regions, alternatively it could convert the drone regions from a non-ghetto region.

A quick fix could be to add a mini-profession to mining equivalent to salvaging for missions/ratting. This would then feed components into a mini-industry. Maybe something like finding a rare mineral vein which would be equivalent to a faction spawn or a sentient drone.
Edit: I would envision the rare ore/vein spawning once a roid is popped so that people don't run around cherry picking the good stuff and leaving nothing for the miners.

The quick fix would be easier to implement and could be added to the current framework. The larger sweeping fix would be more work but the drama and fighting along with making mining a worthwhile unique profession could be good for the game.


Pages: first : previous : ... 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 ... : last (21)

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