These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

To FINITY and.....
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#1 - 2012-10-17 03:30:15 UTC
Ok. Time for the serious hat, no metaphors and no junking.

Why are roids and ice an infinite resource and why can't (or won't) CCP make them a diminishing resource?

Is runaway inflation a very real possibility?
- If so, are people happy for their ships to be 2, 3 or 4 times more expensive?

Is the current buff actually causing deflation?
- If so, are people happy paying less for their ships?

What gives?

Seems everybody wants it every which way and the miner is and remains the meat in the sandwich while people play at fix it CCP, it's not suiting MY playstyle - it's coming from all camps and for a variety of reasons.

And each day there is a new post about "those damn miners" and "those damn gankers". There's gotta be a real cost incurred somewhere along the line if this keeps going. There's no end to it, and ultimately no point either without an indication as to WHY it is.

My 2 bits:-
As stupid as it might sound, maybe CCP should just stop providing roids altogether and make people get their own minerals, I don't know, from NPC loot (yeah, yeah, I know).

Perhaps the way to do it is using sharp AI rat droppings across all sectors to really make "mining" interesting, attain value and prevent deflation. Quiet tweaks server side to modify spawns? All worth thinking about.


C'mon peeps, straight up. Discuss.
And please, we don't need more gank v miner either - trying to get beyond that


"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
SegaPhoenix
Chicks on Speed
Weapons Of Mass Production.
#2 - 2012-10-17 03:50:44 UTC
Any argument against "those miners" or "those gankers" is an unfair and illogical generalization. The most important topic of debate (which gets poorly twisted into nonsensical trolling) is whether or not CCP is/should be catering to players that are adverse to inconvenience.

Unfortunately competing for resources in belts is an inconvenience so CCP will likely not adjust that or risk losing those players who can't be arsed to put any effort in to competing for them. Sadly to say there's more and more of them everyday.

If you try to implement a system in where people have to get there own minerals for their own production you would be alienating the best portion of the free market and you would see that nobody can mine enough to keep up with their production lines. It takes several miners minimum to keep up with the production capabilities of a mildly skilled character.
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3 - 2012-10-17 03:51:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Kitty Bear
Because finite resources only really work as a control mechanic in a single player game with a finite period of gameplay.

Demand would rapidly outstrip supply, and it would create an untenable situation.
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
#4 - 2012-10-17 03:59:47 UTC
I am waiting for perhaps a preview to ring mining next fanfest, I've heard all the ideas of its mechanics, but haven't actually seen what it would look like in game. No doubt the mining mechanic needs to change. But there is no reason to make it pew pew. Minerals should be mining. Blowing stuff up should be different rewards.

And prices of ships have stabilized for the most part after the drone shock from Mar and have very slow started to go back down ever so slightly for some ships and only stabilized for others. The new barges have not really had much visual effect on materials unless you look at ice with the increased afk friendly cargo holds. The easy buck from ice was gone in a month.
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#5 - 2012-10-17 04:35:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Touval Lysander
SegaPhoenix wrote:
Any argument against "those miners" or "those gankers" is an unfair and illogical generalization. The most important topic of debate (which gets poorly twisted into nonsensical trolling) is whether or not CCP is/should be catering to players that are adverse to inconvenience.

I was actually responding to the train of thought that ganking is neccessary as a market modifier - I personally don't believe half the ganker v miner rhetoric as it is currently being argued.

But I'm also well aware that concerted campaigns against miners do have an effect on prices - we know that much - but I'm not convinced that the power to do so should be so polarised.


And for sure, I concur on the inconvenience factor but you sorta get into a case of how easy does it need to be? Perhaps I'm hoping for miner input in how they would view "a little less convenience" to undertake their obviously important role.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#6 - 2012-10-17 04:41:29 UTC
Kitty Bear wrote:
Because finite resources only really work as a control mechanic in a single player game with a finite period of gameplay.

Demand would rapidly outstrip supply, and it would create an untenable situation.

Only if the level of finity is unable to be identified. CCP would easily have figures showing aggregate market demand and from where those minerals come from predominately.

Even if you stayed with roids as the source of minerals, it's pretty easy to get the amount required about right, and perhaps miners having to chase it around because of it's distribution could make for some exciting and new emergent gameplay.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Commander Spurty
#7 - 2012-10-17 04:53:09 UTC
But then they might have to apply the same logic to tech moons.

Even CCP doesn't want to deal with the muppet army that will shot post the forums until the end of days

Best leave be

(Personally I prefer the concept of forcing exploration to discover new cache of whatever, but apparently that's too much like space being some frontier you have to explore or something)

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#8 - 2012-10-17 05:18:43 UTC
Spurty wrote:
But then they might have to apply the same logic to tech moons.

Even CCP doesn't want to deal with the muppet army that will shot post the forums until the end of days

Best leave be

(Personally I prefer the concept of forcing exploration to discover new cache of whatever, but apparently that's too much like space being some frontier you have to explore or something)

They might is not the same as they should. Tech will retain it's own value because it's almost monopolized. No neccessity exists (yet) to modify via an external force.

And I sorta like the idea of a scan down too.

Even more I like the idea of comets, racing across systems with bits breaking off. Variable minerals in each piece with a comet core made of A,B & C. Keep miners busy for weeks as it crosses through lowsec etc.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Taiwanistan
#9 - 2012-10-17 05:28:51 UTC
yeah the higher the sec the mo' roids spawn right?

TA on wis: "when we have a feature that is its own functional ecosystem of gameplay then hooks into the greater ecosystem of EVE as a whole, and it provides good replayability."
Hypercake Mix
#10 - 2012-10-17 08:25:57 UTC
Taiwanistan wrote:
yeah the higher the sec the mo' roids spawn right?

MANY ROIDS. Oh, but they're all so tiny.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#11 - 2012-10-17 08:49:14 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
Why are roids and ice an infinite resource and why can't (or won't) CCP make them a diminishing resource?
Because there is infinite demand for them.

Quote:
Is runaway inflation a very real possibility?
Nah.

Quote:
Is the current buff actually causing deflation?
Which buff are you talking about? The mining barges? Nah.
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
#12 - 2012-10-17 09:31:23 UTC
I wonder why we can't moon mine in 0.4

And then I wonder what will happen when all resources (belts) are mined up. No production possible without the minerals, and reprocessing stuff from NPC loot would take a lot to build a frigate, let alone anything bigger.

/c

★★★ Secure 3rd party service ★★★

Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'

Twitter @ChribbaVeldspar
F'elch
Wall Street Trading
#13 - 2012-10-17 09:52:32 UTC
High ship prices.

It's getting silly. When are CCP going to do something about this?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#14 - 2012-10-17 10:04:30 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
Ok. Time for the serious hat, no metaphors and no junking.

Why are roids and ice an infinite resource and why can't (or won't) CCP make them a diminishing resource?

Is runaway inflation a very real possibility?
- If so, are people happy for their ships to be 2, 3 or 4 times more expensive?

Is the current buff actually causing deflation?
- If so, are people happy paying less for their ships?

What gives?

Seems everybody wants it every which way and the miner is and remains the meat in the sandwich while people play at fix it CCP, it's not suiting MY playstyle - it's coming from all camps and for a variety of reasons.

And each day there is a new post about "those damn miners" and "those damn gankers". There's gotta be a real cost incurred somewhere along the line if this keeps going. There's no end to it, and ultimately no point either without an indication as to WHY it is.

My 2 bits:-
As stupid as it might sound, maybe CCP should just stop providing roids altogether and make people get their own minerals, I don't know, from NPC loot (yeah, yeah, I know).

Perhaps the way to do it is using sharp AI rat droppings across all sectors to really make "mining" interesting, attain value and prevent deflation. Quiet tweaks server side to modify spawns? All worth thinking about.


C'mon peeps, straight up. Discuss.
And please, we don't need more gank v miner either - trying to get beyond that




Why is "infinite" ore from asteroids bad, but "infinite" minerals from rat loot good?

CCP have already hugely reduced non-ore mineral sources to maybe 1% of what they used to be. As a result, mineral prices have naturally risen, with the most labor-intensive minerals rising most sharply. Not Big Surprise, as they say.


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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#15 - 2012-10-17 11:40:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Skippermonkey
Remove static belts as they currently stand and introduce mining 'plex',

much like the way you use system scanner to get a site in FW, all roids within the site have a finite amount of minerals in them (scalable on whether its a small/med/large site like FW)

low % chance that its an ice belt.
screw that idea, i see no reason why ice and ore cant be in the same site

Make the miners actually work a tiny bit before they can get their ore

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#16 - 2012-10-17 13:43:53 UTC
Skippermonkey wrote:
Remove static belts as they currently stand and introduce mining 'plex',

much like the way you use system scanner to get a site in FW, all roids within the site have a finite amount of minerals in them (scalable on whether its a small/med/large site like FW)

low % chance that its an ice belt.
screw that idea, i see no reason why ice and ore cant be in the same site

Make the miners actually work a tiny bit before they can get their ore


That already exists
It's called exploration
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#17 - 2012-10-17 14:08:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Lin-Young Borovskova
Touval Lysander wrote:
Ok. Time for the serious hat, no metaphors and no junking.

Why are roids and ice an infinite resource and why can't (or won't) CCP make them a diminishing resource?


Because it's good for competition witch some obviously don't like, why would they? -their dream is to be the only mineral provider with their dozens alts mining afk for hours, then use all megalo/jerk (choose your pick) arguments they can and there's absolutely nothing or evidence you might well bring to even consider they might as well be reasonable some day.

Quote:
Is runaway inflation a very real possibility?
- If so, are people happy for their ships to be 2, 3 or 4 times more expensive?


Of course they don't, who has everything to win with this stupid model? -I'll let you figure out but the chain of those is short.

Quote:
Is the current buff actually causing deflation?
- If so, are people happy paying less for their ships?


Of course, more value to your isk: more fun playing less time grinding rabbits, gaming is about fun witch is a concept "that" kind of player has no idea what it means.

Quote:
Seems everybody wants it every which way and the miner is and remains the meat in the sandwich while people play at fix it CCP, it's not suiting MY playstyle - it's coming from all camps and for a variety of reasons.

And each day there is a new post about "those damn miners" and "those damn gankers". There's gotta be a real cost incurred somewhere along the line if this keeps going. There's no end to it, and ultimately no point either without an indication as to WHY it is.


Not everybody, just a minority making them selves vocal with their main, npc corp alt and high sec alt corporations full of alts.
It's nothing but misinformation and lobbying. CCP for sure knows thousands times better than those what's good for them and the GREATER GOOD for players.

My 2 cents: we can only dream CCP would actually do their (minority) so apocalyptic changes. If the community could just get rid of those once and for all there would be less eploiters/boters/rmt/jerks (choose your pick) and this game would be a lot better.
I can't stop laughing while I read them, "adapt or die" is a concept filling their mouth but they have no idea what is about.

brb
Robert De'Arneth
#18 - 2012-10-17 14:22:51 UTC
Well I can tell you only for me, if they change the current system to what you want, I would not play anymore. I have no issue with the current system. The real issue I see here is, some people want to consider EVE a full time job rather then a game. And more than half the suggestions from players would have quite a few people quitting. Again that is me, well and other players I know. *shrug* I pay CCP to take care of these issues, they have real data, not data from players, who are suspect, witness all the cries when balance tweaks come.

I'm a nerd, you can check my stats!! Skilling Int/Mem at 45 sp per minute is how I mack!     I'm like a lapdog, all bark no bite. 
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#19 - 2012-10-17 16:01:27 UTC
O I dont know....

Probably for the same reason that's behind infinite rats, infinite missions, infinite moongoo, infinite grav and ladar sites, infinite hacking sites... infinite incursions.....infinite isk....

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#20 - 2012-10-17 16:12:13 UTC
The only thing I can think of and I am not even sure it needs to be done is just make roids have a lower respawn value. So systems that are mined out constantly will not have much if any minerals the next day. I know this is a pain but miners should have to rotate the systems they mine in to have decent yields from the belts. I also agree that mission or anom rats should be the same way. The more a system is farmed for rats or minerals the less it produces. This would be healthy for the game over all IMO.
12Next page