open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked CCP insurance nerf = Destruction of mining as a professsion
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic

John Blackthorn
Foundation
Posted - 2010.06.21 16:12:00 - [61]
 

There are multiple issues ccp are trying to work out and it's a hard balance to strike.

If you outfit a decent hulk it costs what.. at least 240M? How long mining does it take to make that isk back. Then if you do get destroyed you get how much for an insured hulk? a few million. I simply would not take a ship like that to low sec. You can use it in 0.0 where you can have support and carefully watch local and a scout a few jumps out. So that you can control your risk.

Not long before the insurance change I bought two hulk's and mod's and threw them into a iteron 5, and setup the best tank that I could for it. I wasn't five jumps out of jita until a brutix suicide me obtaining both hulk's and his insurance for his brutix back. To me that was the "I Win" button.

At least with the insurance change battleship suicides will cost some isk. But this changes how war's are conduced too, now it will truly be a war of attrition. At first I really didn't like the insurance change but now I realize that we had it to easy. I use to tell new memers in the corp get yourself a battleship and full insurance, fit it properly even with t1 equipment. As long as it was fitted property you will be a good contributor to the effort. And once insured you'll always be able to jump right back into another b.s.

But now, you have to work for it. Now those alliances will need those miners in 0.0. How many times have you seen... Alliance recuting pvp only. blah blah blah. Now maybe you'll find alliances recurting miners.

Bartholomeus Crane
Gallente
The Crane Family
Posted - 2010.06.21 20:40:00 - [62]
 

Originally by: Kerfira
It is blindingly simple...

In an MMO with a free economy, an activity will pay roughly proportional to the EFFORT involved, NOT the time spent.

In effect, this translates to at-the-keyboard time. So if a 30 minute activity (for example mission running) requires 30 minuts ATK time, it will pay 6 times as much as a 30 minute activity (for example mining) that only require 5 minutes ATK time.
This is of course just a simplified example, since there are more variables in play. The principle remains the same though.

The free economy will (now that the last artificial constraint has been removed) see that miners will receive EXACTLY the reward they deserve relative to EVE's other activities!


If only that were true. Unfortunately, it is not. The free market, invisible hand principle doesn't work in EVE. In fact, it never has, and it never will.

The first reason is that players will not demand fair pay for an days work. There are plenty of miners, for example, out there that do no actually mine for profit. They mine because that is how they want to spend their time in EVE. Hard to imagine but true. As a result of that, they will sell their minerals at prices below profitable level. So for every for-profit miner out there, there are a large number of not-for-profit miners, and so the supply and demand principle does not work, or rather works very inefficiently. Comparison with the real world in that sense simply doesn't work.

The second reason is that there are still a lot of macro-miners out there. And they have the slimmest of profit margins as they are actually not investing any amount of time in harvesting their minerals. As such, they can sell well below fair market price and still make enough Isk. Were a for-profit miner to stop mining, these guys can and will gladly make up the for slag this may have caused. Again, any comparison with the real world simply doesn't apply.

Finally, because of the abundance of cheap loot (still) and the efficiency of reprocessing, there is still an abundance of at least low-end minerals. There is simply no pressure in the market for prices to rise. This was always hidden behind the insurance cover.

With the removal of the insurance, CCP removed one of the last, if not the last pressure for mineral prices to stay as high as they were. With the minimum price of a ship guaranteed by the insurance price offered, T1 ship producers were guaranteed a minimum profit margin as well, and the miners could charge a certain amount of that profit margin for their minerals.

With insurance gone we're seeing a crash in the price of ships, and a subsequent crash in the price of minerals. I predict this will continue until a new insurance price equilibrium will have been reached. Unfortunately, because the insurance prices are coupled to the mineral prices, equally undergoing a crash, the chance of entering in a downward spiral is quite large. With decreased insurance prices, ship prices will decrease, mineral prices will subsequently decrease, which in turn will decrease insurance prices and so on.

The hardest hit will be the most vulnerable in the EVE market. Although cheap ships are always nice, new or low-tech miners and producers (those that are still left), will see their profit margins slashed and forced to turn to other, more profitable Isk-making activities, like PvE (largely unaffected). New players hoping to start a career in mining (resource gathering) or production (crafting) will thus see their hopes dashed (for a while now TBH) and if not inclined to try other parts of the 'sandbox', will turn away from the game. Players already engaged in these activities face the same decision.

It is still entirely unclear to me what CCP hoped to gain from this interference with the low-end EVE market. It was in a pretty bad state as it is. What is clear is that they had plenty of warning of what would happen if they went ahead. All, again, to no avail. It is sad really ...

Catherine Frasier
Posted - 2010.06.21 20:52:00 - [63]
 

Originally by: Kerfira
It is blindingly simple...

In an MMO with a free economy, an activity will pay roughly proportional to the EFFORT involved, NOT the time spent.
Well, that's blindingly simplistic anyway.

How 'bout we just quintuple the mineral costs of all ships...

Princess Jodi
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.06.21 21:03:00 - [64]
 

Originally by: centurion zulu
What we need is another good all out eve fight. North vs. South whatever. Best thing To cure all the crying about poor prices etc.

It's all about supply and demand. This whole game revolves around ships and mods, no matter what you do in it.




In case you haven't noticed, we just finished 2 months of daily fleet fights defending against Molle's latest invasion. If that didn't drain the mineral reserves to the point that prices increased, then I doubt another war will. During that time, the entire North ceased mining (not that I've ever seen a mining op while in Razor; we really don't mine at all.) I assume the same was true of our Southern invaders as well.

What is happening is that there quite simply are more minerals than demand for them. If you're not happy with the income from mining, switch to one of the other 10,000 professions.

Vynel Mortes
Posted - 2010.06.22 01:53:00 - [65]
 

Originally by: Opertone
Edited by: Opertone on 18/06/2010 12:37:11

A normal player can not mine more than 2 hours straight. His profits need to be higher or equal to other activities, simply a) to motivate, b) give the opportunity for mining to become more challenging.

<snipped for wall of text issues>
{/quote]

Actually alot of normal players spend far more than 2 hours a day mining and make a reasonable isk ratio at it.

The general rule of thumb is: The miner makes money by patience and research. It's really just a different form of trading.

Read and understand the market and you can make a good deal of isk mining, I am still new to the game and to mining but I do feel that saying that macro miners are completely killing the proffession is as much an excuse as it is a reason for ore price reduction. Macro miners do in fact lower the price of ores in certain areas. Taking the time to search out markets unscathed by their robotic ways and hauling your ores there will solve that problem at least on a basic level.

To be successful in industry you can't just decide to make a quick buck, you need to be patient and wait for the ores to hit the prices you want to sell your rocks and minerals at, or you need to take the ores that you make and produce things people actually want to purchase, the insurance change did drop the price of ships slightly solution, watch the market trends, watch the systems you sell ships in read the forums daily for flavor of the month ships.

Understand base supply and demand.

Mining can be profitable if you do the homework behind it, you can't jump in a barge and sit in a belt for 2 hours a day and assume your going to make billions of isk from just mining rock.

Ris Dnalor
Minmatar
Fleet of Doom
Posted - 2010.06.22 04:34:00 - [66]
 

Originally by: Guilliman R
Originally by: Ak'athra J'ador
yeah CCP how about making mining profitable again?


I agree, remove 80% of all ore in highsec belts.


or alternately, remove 80% of all highsec systems from eve....

either way...

just sayin...

Idicious Lightbane
Percussive Diplomacy
Posted - 2010.06.22 05:10:00 - [67]
 

Originally by: John Blackthorn


Not long before the insurance change I bought two hulk's and mod's and threw them into a iteron 5, and setup the best tank that I could for it. I wasn't five jumps out of jita until a brutix suicide me obtaining both hulk's and his insurance for his brutix back. To me that was the "I Win" button.




When transporting that expensive equipment in a t1 indy atleast mwd + cloack all the Jita pipe systems and probly the entire trip. 500 mil carge in a ship that can't really be tanked well no matter how you fit it is just asking to be ganked, also never Autopilot with cargo like that. Not trying to put you down just some friendly advice Smile

Idicious Lightbane
Percussive Diplomacy
Posted - 2010.06.22 05:17:00 - [68]
 

Edited by: Idicious Lightbane on 22/06/2010 05:57:12
Originally by: Vynel Mortes
Originally by: Opertone
Edited by: Opertone on 18/06/2010 12:37:11

A normal player can not mine more than 2 hours straight. His profits need to be higher or equal to other activities, simply a) to motivate, b) give the opportunity for mining to become more challenging.

<snipped for wall of text issues>
{/quote]

Actually alot of normal players spend far more than 2 hours a day mining and make a reasonable isk ratio at it.

The general rule of thumb is: The miner makes money by patience and research. It's really just a different form of trading.

Read and understand the market and you can make a good deal of isk mining, I am still new to the game and to mining but I do feel that saying that macro miners are completely killing the proffession is as much an excuse as it is a reason for ore price reduction. Macro miners do in fact lower the price of ores in certain areas. Taking the time to search out markets unscathed by their robotic ways and hauling your ores there will solve that problem at least on a basic level.

To be successful in industry you can't just decide to make a quick buck, you need to be patient and wait for the ores to hit the prices you want to sell your rocks and minerals at, or you need to take the ores that you make and produce things people actually want to purchase, the insurance change did drop the price of ships slightly solution, watch the market trends, watch the systems you sell ships in read the forums daily for flavor of the month ships.

Understand base supply and demand.

Mining can be profitable if you do the homework behind it, you can't jump in a barge and sit in a belt for 2 hours a day and assume your going to make billions of isk from just mining rock.



The main reason for the 'crashing' of the mineral market with Tyrannis was that up till then all the mineral prices had a point they could not drop much beyond. That was determined by base insurance payout, theoreticly people shouldn't be selling ships for under the cost of full insurance. Prices got so low however that people would build ships, insure them and then blow them up for profit (insurance payout was worth more than cost of minerals + materials to build ship)

With Tyrannis insurance was changed to be based on the global mineral market prices and change according to suply/demand, the new prices are what the minerals have been worth for a long time but were being artificially kept high. This will ofcourse stabalize in time but will probly take a while.

Jojo Redana
Posted - 2010.06.22 05:55:00 - [69]
 

Edited by: Jojo Redana on 22/06/2010 06:06:20
Originally by: Ris Dnalor


or alternately, remove 80% of all highsec systems from eve....

either way...

just sayin...


Why only 80%? Remove all belts from all secs. Or remove all systems from the game.

It's much easier... or remove all ships and pvp when you're at it. Last man standing would kill us all.

Sisohiv
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2010.06.22 05:57:00 - [70]
 

5 years ago you could take a miner mission and never go to the mining site. Just buy the ore off the market and complete the mission. That got nerfed. It drove up the price of ores and minerals. Doesnt seem like a bad thing now does it? CCP nerfed themselves in to a corner.

Over production? EvE is so predictable. People know whent hey will lose 100% of the time. Dock up and dont bother. Nobody loses ships, so over production? Sort of. Fix bad mechanics with more bad mechanics? Whatever.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.06.22 06:34:00 - [71]
 

Edited by: Venkul Mul on 22/06/2010 10:40:38
Edited by: Venkul Mul on 22/06/2010 06:42:50

Originally by: Guilliman R
Originally by: Venkul Mul

Are you aware of the results?

Shortage of low ends -> 0.0 miners till need to mine all the minerals to keep mining upgrades up -> over-abundance of high end -> high end prices tanks and low end prices increase -> less isk for the 0.0 miners. Razz





A few tweaks could be applied.

Only high sec ore is probe hidden, low sec and 0.0 belts remain as they are.

Low sec belts get "Very dense" ore types, yielding 50% more minerals per m. 0.0 belts get "Ultra dense" ore types yielding 100-150% extra mins per m.


This creates the choice for miners. You don't need to mine more m in lowsec/0.0 for a better profit. So it's a bit easier. Mineral spread is more balanced with most coming from lowsec/0.0. Added benefit of low/0.0 ore to be easier to move.




LOL, you are very naive.

Better yield ores don't man people will mine less hours, it mean they will mine the same number of hours and get more minerals. So the market will be full of minerals and the prices will go down.

And 0.0 miners need to mine a specific volume of ores to keep the upgrades, not a secific quantity of minerals, so they will still be forced to mine and overproduce.


You can't cure low mineral prices increasing mineral yield in any form.

Originally by: Kerfira
It is blindingly simple...

In an MMO with a free economy, an activity will pay roughly proportional to the EFFORT involved, NOT the time spent.

In effect, this translates to at-the-keyboard time. So if a 30 minute activity (for example mission running) requires 30 minuts ATK time, it will pay 6 times as much as a 30 minute activity (for example mining) that only require 5 minutes ATK time.
This is of course just a simplified example, since there are more variables in play. The principle remains the same though.

The free economy will (now that the last artificial constraint has been removed) see that miners will receive EXACTLY the reward they deserve relative to EVE's other activities!



For that to work CCP need to remove much more meta0 loot from missions and nerf again drone loot.
But those action will have other negative effects, making missions a isk faucet without a material faucet to compensate the inflationary effect and 0.0 drone regions a wasteland.

A partial solution could be to replace some of the drone compounds with more advanced drone components and increasing the drop rate of the BPC of the augmented and integrated drones, maybe even adding mining/EW/logistic version of those drones, so that the people living in the drone regions will have something that is not minerals to sell.

Guilliman R
Gallente
Northstar Cabal
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2010.06.22 07:11:00 - [72]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul

You can't cure low mineral prices increasing mineral yield in any form.




You seem to only read select parts of someone's post. When you remove 80% of the minerals from highsec by nerfing belts, prices will skyrock. Part of the loss will be caught by the new ore types from lowsec/0.0sec. Very dense ore (+100% in minerals) would mean miners can ninja mine in lowsec and 0.0

It creates options and balances risk v reward a bit. As with all napkin ideas (and a lot of people seem to forget) these are just ideas, not 20 page fully worked out ideas with pro cons, assessments as to how everything in eve would respond to this change etc. That's not my job to make, that's CCP's job.


The point still stands, unless people loose ships more, mining should be nerfed, a lot. But only in highsec. And to top it off, I don't give a **** about highsec miners. Noone should. It should represent the Empires have mined away all resources, so players need to team up and head out to get minerals. Fixes macro miners in one go.

Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
Posted - 2010.06.22 07:13:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: Terrigal
Take a pat on the back CCP as youve finally broken the camels back.
It is no longer worth mining at all now it used to be well sorta worth now youve absolutely decimated it. Armaggedons in Jita 32 million, I can understand those who use mining marco's now as its the only way you can make it profitable.

CCP how about banning the remaining macro miners then you can totally destroy eve as we know it.

I'm so glad there's a heap of new mmo's coming out soon cause CCP ive had it with you lot.
Not prifitable? How? You invest time and get isk from nothing but that time. Are you making less now than before? Yup. The flip side is that whilst you may be getting less isk that isk buys about the same amount of stuff as before due to deflation. So you end up with the same purchasing power as before even though you have less isk coming in. *shrugs* Never cared for the 'lets see who can make his wallet the biggest' metagame some people play but oh well it is a sandbox after all so go right ahead and be angry over your internats wealth or lack of.

Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2010.06.22 07:15:00 - [74]
 

Quote:

I am not under the delusion we can "kill" macro mining with hulkageddon... but if we take down two thousand of their ships or so, it surely can't hurt, can it?



Not discussing how or why you do this (the media and blog usage would suggest self promotion) but saying this will kill macroers is a flat lie.

A macro is going to get the equivalent of 10 Hulks per month, losing 1-2 does not matter at all.

At the same time, the prime target can be squishies like Retrievers and similar, which took the newbs days and days of (stupid imho) grinding.
This applies even more for those who patiently farmed their first Hulk as well.

Those are not going to recover so easily, so if you ideally setup a scoring system, for every 1000 score points you deal to miners in general, 950 end on the face of "human" miners and 50 on the macroers.


Quote:

The free economy will (now that the last artificial constraint has been removed) see that miners will receive EXACTLY the reward they deserve relative to EVE's other activities!



A PLEX is 300M. This means that 10M a day cover it and still, it can also farm datacores and PI besides the mining.
10M a day = 434K ISK per hour.

This is what the free economy is going to EXACTLY yield to a miner before a macro decides it's not worth farming any more.

I can't think for a single reason for a non macro to keep playing for 434k per hour, so the logical conclusion is that EvE will be the first MMO whose economy foundations are entirely supported by macros and bots.

Now, I don't think CCP can go around and PR about their uber economy system on the New York Times forever, if the foundation is a rotten cancer, do you?


So, YES, on paper the demand and offer principles are sound, but in practice the offer ends up to be made by RMTs. So, CCP went to so great lenghts to combat them and yet they are going to blindly give the game keys to the RMTers?
I find it unlikely, and anyway not a game I want to be accomplice of.


Quote:

During that time, the entire North ceased mining (not that I've ever seen a mining op while in Razor; we really don't mine at all.) I assume the same was true of our Southern invaders as well.



From my time when I was in IT, I have never seen some alliance mining op going, even in my own corp we did like 1 mining op every several weeks to build some urgent dreads and that's it.
It's not in the warfare-ing player mindset to sit down and mine, all those I know (including me) did anomalies, missions (when in NPC space) and similar.

Ocih
Amarr
Space Mermaids
Posted - 2010.06.22 07:25:00 - [75]
 

Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha

From my time when I was in IT, I have never seen some alliance mining op going, even in my own corp we did like 1 mining op every several weeks to build some urgent dreads and that's it.
It's not in the warfare-ing player mindset to sit down and mine, all those I know (including me) did anomalies, missions (when in NPC space) and similar.



The odd anomoly mining op. In 0.0 its not about profit so much. Its about getting it done, now. So a belt that would take a high sec miner 2 days will take a null sec Ops team 2 hrs tops with 15 hulks or more.

Cathy Drall
Amarr
Royal Amarr Institute
Posted - 2010.06.22 07:31:00 - [76]
 

Edited by: Cathy Drall on 22/06/2010 07:37:25
--
Destruction of mining as a professsion ... ?

It's very simple. On a free market there's supply and demand. Prices drop when there's more supply than demand. Prices rise when there's more demand than supply.

I think there's 2 major reasons for the all-time low mineral prices:

- Mission loot has been slightly decraesed but still not a lot. I read that 40% of the mineral supply comes from mission loot reprcessing; now that everyone farms L4s the supply is becioming a lot more abundant than was accounted for. Personally I hate all the worthless "reprocess" loot that doesn't fit in my cargo.
Why not make the bounties slightly higher and remove 80% of the meta 0 stuff, that way missions stay as profitable as ever while not flooding the market and also may make t1 meta 0 manufacturing a bit more worthwhile?

- Marco miners. Need I say more? They are one of the main causes (if not the main cause) of low mineral prices as explained before. I think I'm not exaggerating if I say that over 50% of the Hulks and Mackinaws around are macro miners. Removing them - or the option to use macros - will be a MAJOR boost to mining and manufacturing profitability. But CCP doesn't do that.

The insurance nerf just showed how abovementioned mechanics acually influenced the game and isn't a "reason" for the drop of mineral prices. Things couldn't stay as they were.
Now if CCP did something about these 2 points we'll have a lot of happy miners again!

Note: the market still isn't 100% free as insurance still isn't player driven. Looking forward to that! Razz

Sinister Dextor
Posted - 2010.06.22 07:31:00 - [77]
 

I seem to recall that it was miners who were the most vocal in calling for a nerf to the insurance payouts. They were angered that people suicide ganking their precious hulks were 'subsidised' by insurance.

Well. now look at the consequences, be careful what you whine for.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.06.22 07:33:00 - [78]
 

Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
The first reason is that players will not demand fair pay for an days work.

That is not for YOU to decide! For those players it IS a fair pay. That you don't want to go that low is YOUR problem, not a problem with mining.
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
The second reason is that there are still a lot of macro-miners out there.

True, but the way to combat them is to make mining require MUCH more attention, like 100% ATK time. Which again points back to the fact that activities are paid by the EFFORT required.
Macro'ers is a fact of life. If you don't want to compete with their prices, you're too expensive.
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
Finally, because of the abundance of cheap loot (still) and the efficiency of reprocessing, there is still an abundance of at least low-end minerals.

I agree with this. Meta-0 stuff should never be dropped as loot (incl. drone compounds), and Meta items should be 'damaged' and require the same amount of minerals to repair as building a new Meta-0 item.
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
With the removal of the insurance, CCP removed one of the last, if not the last pressure for mineral prices to stay as high as they were. With the minimum price of a ship guaranteed by the insurance price offered, T1 ship producers were guaranteed a minimum profit margin as well, and the miners could charge a certain amount of that profit margin for their minerals.

Yes. This was one of CCP's BEST moves for years! State subsidy is never a good thing, especially since this one made combat costless, and was subsidising macroers big-time!
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
With decreased insurance prices, ship prices will decrease, mineral prices will subsequently decrease, which in turn will decrease insurance prices and so on.

So you essentially claim that macro'ers will continue to mine with no money coming from it? And that players will too? Dream on. With the fall in price, some miners will stop, and eventually a fair mineral price level will be reached.
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
New players hoping to start a career in mining (resource gathering) or production (crafting) will thus see their hopes dashed (for a while now TBH) and if not inclined to try other parts of the 'sandbox', will turn away from the game.

Which is good for the game, since way too many minerals are being produced.
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
It is still entirely unclear to me what CCP hoped to gain from this interference with the low-end EVE market. It was in a pretty bad state as it is. What is clear is that they had plenty of warning of what would happen if they went ahead. All, again, to no avail. It is sad really ...

It is pretty clear to me. They want combat losses to actually cost money, they want a healthy T1 market where prices move with supply and demand, which they didn't when the mineral market was completely set by the insurance floor, and they wanted to stop the ISK-faucet that was insurance fraud.
These are all GOOD things for the game!

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.06.22 08:20:00 - [79]
 

Speaking as one of those who led the campaign to reform insurance, it is nice to have all my assertions about how badly the old insurance was distorting the market vindicated.

However, I do NOT believe that mining should be abandoned to botters. Most of the doomsday rhetoric in this (and similar) threads is very exaggerated, but the plain fact is now that the real conditions of the mineral market and the mining profession have been exposed for what they are, and those conditions are dire.

Miners, I know things look bad now, but this is a positive long term step. Now that the insurance price subsidy has been removed, it's time to make mining competitive, demanding, fun - and potentially lucrative once again.

Chaos Incarnate
Faceless Logistics
Posted - 2010.06.22 10:13:00 - [80]
 

Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha

Now, I don't think CCP can go around and PR about their uber economy system on the New York Times forever, if the foundation is a rotten cancer, do you?



If anything, the old foundation was just as rotten; CCP could have removed all the middlemen and just had Pend place bounties on asteroids and NPC seed minerals at mandated prices. Why bother calling it a player-driven market if the entire thing is based upon CCP's arbitrary mineral values that were set back...what, over 7 years ago at this point?

Quote:

So, YES, on paper the demand and offer principles are sound, but in practice the offer ends up to be made by RMTs. So, CCP went to so great lenghts to combat them and yet they are going to blindly give the game keys to the RMTers?
I find it unlikely, and anyway not a game I want to be accomplice of.



How is potentially heavy cuts in their profits 'giving them the keys'? The old system subsidized unlimited easy isk generation by providing an endless outlet for minerals at fixed prices. I can't see macromining remaining sustainable for RMT if prices drop heavily. a thoroughly ridiculous 90% drop in isk/hr for highsec mining is a 90% cut in their profits, even if they're sitting on big isk stockpiles.

Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.06.22 10:55:00 - [81]
 

Edited by: Batolemaeus on 22/06/2010 11:03:38
Edited by: Batolemaeus on 22/06/2010 10:56:46
Originally by: Kerfira

So you essentially claim that macro'ers will continue to mine with no money coming from it? And that players will too? Dream on. With the fall in price, some miners will stop, and eventually a fair mineral price level will be reached.



Well, you're wrong. No fair mineral price will be reached. We're approaching a situation similar to Lineage 2. Resource gathering has become so tedious due to the effort required, that it is almost completely done by bots.
Macros will break even eventually. They don't need to sleep, they can mine much more than humans. With more players quitting mining, they will be replaced by macros.
In fact, I'm pretty certain that this is already largely the case.

Originally by: Chaos Incarnate
a thoroughly ridiculous 90% drop in isk/hr for highsec mining is a 90% cut in their profits, even if they're sitting on big isk stockpiles.

The highmin basket is actually dying, not the lowmin one. Which points us at gross oversupply coming from the drone region macros and w-space.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.06.22 11:18:00 - [82]
 

Edited by: Venkul Mul on 22/06/2010 11:33:02

Originally by: Guilliman R
Originally by: Venkul Mul

You can't cure low mineral prices increasing mineral yield in any form.




You seem to only read select parts of someone's post. When you remove 80% of the minerals from highsec by nerfing belts, prices will skyrock. Part of the loss will be caught by the new ore types from lowsec/0.0sec. Very dense ore (+100% in minerals) would mean miners can ninja mine in lowsec and 0.0

It creates options and balances risk v reward a bit. As with all napkin ideas (and a lot of people seem to forget) these are just ideas, not 20 page fully worked out ideas with pro cons, assessments as to how everything in eve would respond to this change etc. That's not my job to make, that's CCP's job.


The point still stands, unless people loose ships more, mining should be nerfed, a lot. But only in highsec. And to top it off, I don't give a **** about highsec miners. Noone should. It should represent the Empires have mined away all resources, so players need to team up and head out to get minerals. Fixes macro miners in one go.


Already replied to that in the previous post. Remove high sec ore and you push up the price of low end at the expense of high end.

You are trying to patch a bad idea adding further bad suggestions.

Any move that unbalance the percentages of mineral produced will simply shift the "bottleneck" mineral and increase its price while lowering all other minerals.
Look what increasing the veldpater asteroid respawn rate last summer did to the pyerite price.

It is not possible to cure mineral prices on the supply side (from mining, not from other professions) unless the "cure" kill off most of the miners.

Mining as a profession could be helped with further changes to the mission loot and drone loot (but there further problems, as depicted some post above) but mainly by increasing mineral usage from the EVE population.

In that regard probably meta0 production for T2 production will help a bit, but only after the current stockpiles of mission looted modules will be completely used up.

The main cure is adding mineral sinks with production that will use big piles of minerals. One option could be to add a mineral cost to the isk cost of the PI structures.

BTW, maybe the guys that are surprised by this development should read the MD forums, the effect of the change in insurance was analysed to death even before Tyrannis deployment on Tranquility.

Takseen
Posted - 2010.06.22 11:38:00 - [83]
 

Originally by: Idicious Lightbane
Originally by: John Blackthorn


Not long before the insurance change I bought two hulk's and mod's and threw them into a iteron 5, and setup the best tank that I could for it. I wasn't five jumps out of jita until a brutix suicide me obtaining both hulk's and his insurance for his brutix back. To me that was the "I Win" button.




When transporting that expensive equipment in a t1 indy atleast mwd + cloack all the Jita pipe systems and probly the entire trip. 500 mil carge in a ship that can't really be tanked well no matter how you fit it is just asking to be ganked, also never Autopilot with cargo like that. Not trying to put you down just some friendly advice Smile


Or hell, maybe buy your Hulks somewhere other than Jita. Dodixie has a bunch of hulks a few mill cheaper, and is probably a good deal safer too. Buying everything in Jita just makes things easier for the suicide pirates.

Drivensane
Posted - 2010.06.22 12:54:00 - [84]
 

Originally by: John Blackthorn
Not long before the insurance change I bought two hulk's and mod's and threw them into a iteron 5, and setup the best tank that I could for it. I wasn't five jumps out of jita until a brutix suicide me obtaining both hulk's and his insurance for his brutix back. To me that was the "I Win" button.


Iteron 5 huh?

And you think that any problems you had on account of this little disaster were NOT entirely your fault?

Ori Blake
Posted - 2010.06.22 13:08:00 - [85]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Speaking as one of those who led the campaign to reform insurance, it is nice to have all my assertions about how badly the old insurance was distorting the market vindicated.

However, I do NOT believe that mining should be abandoned to botters. Most of the doomsday rhetoric in this (and similar) threads is very exaggerated, but the plain fact is now that the real conditions of the mineral market and the mining profession have been exposed for what they are, and those conditions are dire.

Miners, I know things look bad now, but this is a positive long term step. Now that the insurance price subsidy has been removed, it's time to make mining competitive, demanding, fun - and potentially lucrative once again.


The only way this will be solved is not by making mining competitive, demanding and fun. What will only solve it is by destroying mining in hi-sec and driving out the oversupply of miners. If you make it fun, you just attract more of them back into it.

Make the amount of miners, macro or not, a tenth of the current population. problem solved.




Terrigal
Posted - 2010.06.22 13:18:00 - [86]
 

This year i've signed up the HulkaggedonIII. This is just to show my distain and not something i'd have considered before.

Yes i saw it coming this nerf and started train for pvp months ago.

Natalie Caladan
Posted - 2010.06.22 13:58:00 - [87]
 

Edited by: Natalie Caladan on 22/06/2010 13:58:08
Originally by: Ori Blake
The only way this will be solved is not by making mining competitive, demanding and fun. What will only solve it is by destroying mining in hi-sec and driving out the oversupply of miners. If you make it fun, you just attract more of them back into it.

Make the amount of miners, macro or not, a tenth of the current population. problem solved.



Wel I still think that making macro botting impossible will make mining a lot more profitable again.

After all, instead of just RL working at day and sleeping at night I could be mining 100 million on my bots if I had any. Every day.

That's 3 billion a month. Per bot. Lots of plexes, so no need for subscription either, let the newbs who don't have any ISK buy plexes for me! So basically free play by breaking the rules and without CCP doing anything about it.

I don't know about you but this annoys me to no end.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.06.22 14:02:00 - [88]
 

Originally by: Ori Blake
Originally by: Malcanis
Speaking as one of those who led the campaign to reform insurance, it is nice to have all my assertions about how badly the old insurance was distorting the market vindicated.

However, I do NOT believe that mining should be abandoned to botters. Most of the doomsday rhetoric in this (and similar) threads is very exaggerated, but the plain fact is now that the real conditions of the mineral market and the mining profession have been exposed for what they are, and those conditions are dire.

Miners, I know things look bad now, but this is a positive long term step. Now that the insurance price subsidy has been removed, it's time to make mining competitive, demanding, fun - and potentially lucrative once again.


The only way this will be solved is not by making mining competitive, demanding and fun. What will only solve it is by destroying mining in hi-sec and driving out the oversupply of miners. If you make it fun, you just attract more of them back into it.

Make the amount of miners, macro or not, a tenth of the current population. problem solved.



Competitive, demanding and fun are code words for "reducing the ore supply, making it more dangerous, and requiring active intelligence to mine". All of which are strongly anti-bot changes.

Widemouth Deepthroat
Posted - 2010.06.22 14:05:00 - [89]
 

Sell your mining character to some dumb ass who doesn't realise how bad it is (or manages to make decent isk/hour by macroing 5+ accounts). Buy a ratter/missioner/inventor or whatever.

Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2010.06.22 14:08:00 - [90]
 

Quote:

If anything, the old foundation was just as rotten; CCP could have removed all the middlemen and just had Pend place bounties on asteroids and NPC seed minerals at mandated prices. Why bother calling it a player-driven market if the entire thing is based upon CCP's arbitrary mineral values that were set back...what, over 7 years ago at this point?



There's a not-so-subtle difference. The old system was flawed, the current system is flawed (still using an artificial support, even if lower than before). A next system where the baseline price is decided by RMTers is rotten. Because RMT are not just a flaw or a bug, they are to eradicate.

No fix can work if there's bots skewing the production so much. ATM I am in a system in The Forge. 82 people in local, at least 65 are known macros with predictable names (people with 9 ships all with the same suffix name and similar), all reported multiple times, all returning because CCP seems powerless.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

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