These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Aftermath of the Mining Barge Changes (Price Indices – October 2012)

First post
Author
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#101 - 2012-12-10 00:23:53 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Pre Inferno
Players: "CCP these mining barge changes are a bad idea, Mackinaw is too good seeing as it has good enough tank to avoid getting ganked meaning only the most paranoid will ever use the Skiff, the biggest ore bay, and enough yield that it's still very competitive against the Hulk for considerably less effort."
CCP: "But teiricide! Roles! Ganking was never meant to be profitable!"

Post Inferno:
Players: "Look CCP, all we see now are Mackinaws everywhere, Hulks are used FAR less than they were before and Mackinaws got a disproportionally large boost. Two Mackinaws get better yield than a Hulk + Orca with full fleet boosts, and even players in large mining fleets mine in Mackinaws often for convenience."
CCP: *silence*

Post Retribution:
CCP: "Look, players! We've evaluated the mining barge changes, and we've made this pretty graph that confirms what you said about the Mackinaw. Not only that, but we've shown that this barge change has had no significant effect on mining anywhere outside of highsec. We like the way this turned out!"
Players: "WTF, how could you possibly look at that data and say you're HAPPY with these changes?"


Switch the EHP of the Mackinaw and the Hulk. Problem fixed.


No, the problem will be fixed when mining will stop being a soul-crushing, boring, "AFK-it-if-you-wish-to-preserve-sanity" (in)activity.

Gee, it's almost as if there wasn't anything to break up that monotony. Like, say, suicide ganks?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#102 - 2012-12-10 00:24:13 UTC
Mocam wrote:
Freezehunter wrote:
Maybe I don't understand macroeconomics, but if people have been mining so damn much compared to the past, how come **** is like 40%-60% more expensive than I remember it 2 years ago if there is such an ore surplus in the system?

Shouldn't prices be going DOWN with all these miners?


What I've been curious about is the COMPOSITE effect of certain changes.

Removal of Drone drops in the Drone Region (which was 'competition' for mined ores) -- *WITH* the new minng barges -- *AND* what economic effect replacing mineral drops with bounties had.

Drone Regions produced huge amounts of minerals. These charts simply show mining barge information but is it going in excess of what was gained or still in a deficit from it. Then the increased cash flow from bounties...

  • Mining = wealth transfer/sink - as you convert to minerals then sell on market, fees are involved so some isk comes out of the game. No "free wealth" - the isk exists already in the game to go to the miners.
  • Bounties = faucet - so isk is pouring in from a sizable area that had very little with respect to isk faucet income.

I've seen a lot of blame on inflation laid at the door of the miners yet the above composite changes aren't discussed.

I just wonder, are minerals still down from those days or actually up, as these charts show. And what effect has the bounties being put in had on the overall economy?

The influx from that faucet could explain a lot of extra isk on the market. If it's also combined with lowered mineral availability due to removal from the Drone Regions... That could explain why prices aren't bottoming out due to mass production.
These are interesting topics for discussion, but we haven't seen that kind of self-reflecting analysis out of CCP since prior to the Tyrannis expansion. CCP has gone silent on any and all game design elements which might be seen as a weakness in their catalog of expansions. And thus all of the insanely dramatic ISK faucets and sinks put into play are barely touched upon from an economic impact perspective.

I don't know if it is a cultural (Icelandic) thing, business management decision or simply lack of available resources to discuss all of the economic changes that have taken place in EVE over the past 1 - 2 years, but it is a sure bet that CCP's customers are discussing them.

+++++++ I have never shed a tear for a fellow EVE player until now. Mark “Seleene” Heard's Blog Honoring Sean "Vile Rat" Smith.

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#103 - 2012-12-10 00:28:21 UTC
Mocam wrote:

What I've been curious about is the COMPOSITE effect of certain changes.

Removal of Drone drops in the Drone Region (which was 'competition' for mined ores) -- *WITH* the new minng barges -- *AND* what economic effect replacing mineral drops with bounties had.

Drone Regions produced huge amounts of minerals. These charts simply show mining barge information but is it going in excess of what was gained or still in a deficit from it. Then the increased cash flow from bounties...

  • Mining = wealth transfer/sink - as you convert to minerals then sell on market, fees are involved so some isk comes out of the game. No "free wealth" - the isk exists already in the game to go to the miners.
  • Bounties = faucet - so isk is pouring in from a sizable area that had very little with respect to isk faucet income.

I've seen a lot of blame on inflation laid at the door of the miners yet the above composite changes aren't discussed.

I just wonder, are minerals still down from those days or actually up, as these charts show. And what effect has the bounties being put in had on the overall economy?

The influx from that faucet could explain a lot of extra isk on the market. If it's also combined with lowered mineral availability due to removal from the Drone Regions... That could explain why prices aren't bottoming out due to mass production.


There's no need for complex or composite effects at all.

1) Miners use Macks for total AFK
2) Roids depletion require human intervention every 2 minutes and moving to a new belt every 2 hours.
Ice require human intervention every 40 minutes, no move.


Guess which of the two activities they are going to do?
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#104 - 2012-12-10 00:30:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

Gee, it's almost as if there wasn't anything to break up that monotony. Like, say, suicide ganks?


At the peak of Goonswarm sponsored Hulkageddon, in the deadliest day of all, they "did" the ice system where I was twice in 24 hours. It's still about 20 hours of pure boredom. Imagine the rest of the year.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#105 - 2012-12-10 00:34:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Quote:
These are interesting topics for discussion, but we haven't seen that kind of self-reflecting analysis out of CCP since prior to the Tyrannis expansion. CCP has gone silent on any and all game design elements which might be seen as a weakness in their catalog of expansions. And thus all of the insanely dramatic ISK faucets and sinks put into play are barely touched upon from an economic impact perspective.

I don't know if it is a cultural (Icelandic) thing, business management decision or simply lack of available resources to discuss all of the economic changes that have taken place in EVE over the past 1 - 2 years, but it is a sure bet that CCP's customers are discussing them.


CCP used to publish a QEN, a PDF showing all sorts of tasty charts and data about EvE stats and economy. Then they stopped as people started to notice the grand mistakes being done and their effects on the economy.

I can almost see Dr. Ejyo swearing while the game designers completely ignore his suggestions and proceed with their redesigns anyway - and actually reduced his team (CCP Diagoras is no more).
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#106 - 2012-12-10 07:52:56 UTC  |  Edited by: corestwo
Mocam wrote:
Freezehunter wrote:
Maybe I don't understand macroeconomics, but if people have been mining so damn much compared to the past, how come **** is like 40%-60% more expensive than I remember it 2 years ago if there is such an ore surplus in the system?

Shouldn't prices be going DOWN with all these miners?


What I've been curious about is the COMPOSITE effect of certain changes.

Removal of Drone drops in the Drone Region (which was 'competition' for mined ores) -- *WITH* the new minng barges -- *AND* what economic effect replacing mineral drops with bounties had.

Drone Regions produced huge amounts of minerals. These charts simply show mining barge information but is it going in excess of what was gained or still in a deficit from it. Then the increased cash flow from bounties...

  • Mining = wealth transfer/sink - as you convert to minerals then sell on market, fees are involved so some isk comes out of the game. No "free wealth" - the isk exists already in the game to go to the miners.
  • Bounties = faucet - so isk is pouring in from a sizable area that had very little with respect to isk faucet income.

I've seen a lot of blame on inflation laid at the door of the miners yet the above composite changes aren't discussed.

I just wonder, are minerals still down from those days or actually up, as these charts show. And what effect has the bounties being put in had on the overall economy?

The influx from that faucet could explain a lot of extra isk on the market. If it's also combined with lowered mineral availability due to removal from the Drone Regions... That could explain why prices aren't bottoming out due to mass production.


Economy's already running at something like a 25T/mo net faucet, another trillion or so (or more likely less, frankly) from the drone regions isn't a big deal. But easily accessible and large scale isk transfers such as mining (or FW before it) takes isk that, yes, exists already in the game but may have been stagnant, and transfers it to the miners, where they spend it on things, including game time. FW before it, same effect, just different vector.

Drone drops from the drone regions were a massive supply of minerals that is no longer there, they allowed the game to enjoy a much higher level of demand than it would have otherwise been able to, and now that demand is being applied to a much smaller supply.

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo

Dave stark
#107 - 2012-12-10 08:10:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
No, the problem will be fixed when mining will stop being a soul-crushing, boring, "AFK-it-if-you-wish-to-preserve-sanity" (in)activity.


from a personal standpoint, i'm going to say you're absolutely wrong. when i have to be constantly watching my screen, i ain't going to be doing it for 20m/hour mining, i'll be something else, because almost any other activity nets more isk/hour. i only accept the low payout from mining because i can do it while doing other things, such as watching tv, writing, reading random internet crap, talking to friends on steam, etc.

there's no way in hell i'd continue to mine if i had to be constantly watching my screen, the payout isn't worth it. to confound this, how would people with multiple mining accounts manage to monitor all 4+ accounts that they have? hell, one of the reasons i use an orca even with my 2 account setup is that i only have to tab to 1 screen to move ore, if i had more then i'd suck it up and tab to 2-3 other screens. however if i had to constantly be watching all of them at the same time... it simply wouldn't work under this new system and multibox mining would mean a lot of inactive accounts and sold mining characters.

honestly, making mining "active" has been suggested many times and it simply isn't the solution, especially when mining's payout is so low and it will massively hurt multi-account miners.
Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
#108 - 2012-12-10 11:00:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Inquisitor Kitchner
I don't often unironically take a dig at CCP as I think you guys do a great job and you engage with the community more then literally any other game developer ever. Properly engage too, not just reply to tweets with one word comments on a leaked screenshot, actually making changes based on opinions.

That said this devblog is total rubbish. The links between cause and effect of any of the figures used are not what the blog says they are, or at least there's no evidence to prove it is what they say they are.

Let's look at the points:

Quote:
The mining barge changes, however, caused a gigantic spike in the production of the smaller vessels. The average monthly number of Retrievers produced in the first half of the year was 13,600 ships....Manufacturing figures for the Procurer are even more dramatic, as its average monthly figure of nearly 2,000 ships was exceeded by 4781% in August and by 9706% in September.


Considering these are the earliest mining ships people can just into I wouldn't put too much on these figures. Firstly they are effected by changes in production cost (I believe) and secondly if the changes were to make mining a better option for income on an alt people will be looking to buy these.

Interesting the ship that is high yield and low hold (i.e. the ship designed to be used for "team" mining) is the one that dropped off in terms of production...

Quote:
Manufacturing of exhumers shows a similar pattern, albeit at a much smaller scale.


If by "similar pattern" you mean that Mackinaws (high cargo hold, "low" tank) now form a much high percentage oh ships produced then yes you are right. Unfortunately that's not the point you were making.

What the figures actually show is mining ship production has dropped off (implying that either demand isn't as great, or the spike pre-changes is enough to satisfy demand for quite a while) BUT Mackinaws now form a disproportionate percentage of mining ships produced, in fact if you look at the graph they form a pretty similar percentage as hulks did when "everyone only ever used hulks" which was the "cause" for the change.

This would imply that Mackinaws and Procurers are the new used ships of choice (as otherwise why bother including the figures for ships produced?). If only we had those figures! Oh wait, we do...


Quote:
The new versions of the ships clearly provide useful mining alternatives to pilots willing to trade off some mining output for a reduced risk of suicide ganks or less workload shoveling ore to a jet can.


This statement is just wrong.

Firstly the graphs don't imply anything about useful mining alternatives. they shows that the two ships that now show overwhelming use are the two ships that allow for the "best" AFK mining. The retriever far outstrips (no pun intended) it's brothers in terms of mining barges and the Mackinaw has overtaken the Hulk in terms of useage for miners. Now the decline in useage of Hulks is not as steep as the mining barge decline, and Mackinaws have not yet hit the disparity of useage that Hulks once had, however exhumers are much more of a significant investment for miners, so no-one is going to be in a rush to sell off their old hulks.

Further this has been measured over just 3 months, I suspect the delta between Mackinaw and Hulk usage will only increase over time.

Quote:
Of course, the last part means greater opportunities for AFK-mining. That, in turn, probably explains why the Retriever has become the most commonly used mining ship, and also why the increase in mining activity is focused on high-security space.


The only observation worth reading in the blog.

The blog then goes on to talk about mining indices, however the only one that has significant changes is ice prices. Which again is the best source for AFK mining.

So in short what the Dev Blog should have been saying was that all the mining changes have achieved is that over a 3 month period:


  1. The production for exhumers is down, the production for mining barges is up
  2. Procurers and Retreviers form the largest part of mining barge production
  3. Mackinaws form by far the largest proportion of the exhumer production
  4. Mackinaws and Retrievers now form the largest part of the mining ship population
  5. The only mineral price to be drastically effected is ice


To me the conclusion should be that AFK mining has been given a significant boost (as the high cargo hold ships are the ones dominant) and that is what more players are now doing (as mainly ice prices have decreased which is the best AFK mining source). The reason that AFK mining has increased was due to the favourable ship for AFK mining (high cargo space) also having a "medium" tank preventing as many deaths (which is why production has slowed, as there is less demand for the ships).

Further more I'd expect that over the coming months the Hulk figures will continue to slowly erode (as old hulk players leave, new mining players start in mackinaws moving from the massive retriever boom) until eventually they replace the Hulk in terms of disparity between that ship and all of the others.

I have to say I am really disappointed with CCP, this is a sham of a devblog. I'm not actually against AFK mining per se, however what I am against is mis-representation of statistics.

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli

GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#109 - 2012-12-10 12:24:12 UTC
For a game which prides its self on Emergent Play - mining is the furtherest thing from it. Miners follow a rather droll script. Warp to the same belt, strip the same astroids and dock at the same station. The introduction of barges was a bad idea to start with and contra to the prime tenet of the game because they promote non-emergent play in both industralists and pirates that are miner focused. Can ORE faction ships just be removed once and for all? Solves AFK and botting in a single stroke.
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#110 - 2012-12-10 13:51:24 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
No, the problem will be fixed when mining will stop being a soul-crushing, boring, "AFK-it-if-you-wish-to-preserve-sanity" (in)activity.


from a personal standpoint, i'm going to say you're absolutely wrong. when i have to be constantly watching my screen, i ain't going to be doing it for 20m/hour mining, i'll be something else, because almost any other activity nets more isk/hour. i only accept the low payout from mining because i can do it while doing other things, such as watching tv, writing, reading random internet crap, talking to friends on steam, etc.

there's no way in hell i'd continue to mine if i had to be constantly watching my screen, the payout isn't worth it. to confound this, how would people with multiple mining accounts manage to monitor all 4+ accounts that they have? hell, one of the reasons i use an orca even with my 2 account setup is that i only have to tab to 1 screen to move ore, if i had more then i'd suck it up and tab to 2-3 other screens. however if i had to constantly be watching all of them at the same time... it simply wouldn't work under this new system and multibox mining would mean a lot of inactive accounts and sold mining characters.

honestly, making mining "active" has been suggested many times and it simply isn't the solution, especially when mining's payout is so low and it will massively hurt multi-account miners.


I agree with this as a guy who has 100mil/hr null alts. Why would i spend my time on active hisec mining when i can make 100m/hr with my null alts on anoms.

And yes only reason i do mining aswell is that i can do it semi-afk. Meaning i can watch tv or read eve forums etc. while still seeing my display. Also ive mined while pvp'ing on my other alt...

But as i said before its just not the mining miners need to do. He need also refine, haul and sell. These things need alot skills and standings, isk and time. Lets say you need standings for refining you need to go do missions to get those standings. You need skills which take long to train like refining, mining mods, mining ships, tank skills etc. Then you basicly need to have freighter which costs 1,4billion and is long train aswell.. Or even orca but thats even longer training. Then you need to actually sell them stuff you mined, refined and hauled which can be tricky aswell.

Anyways what im saying here is that if someone is so jealous to highsec miners why dont he go try himself how little isk he will be making with all that time and effort spent to get hes stuff sold on market. Even if hes able to be semi-afk somewhere during the process..
Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
#111 - 2012-12-10 17:27:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Inquisitor Kitchner
GetSirrus wrote:
For a game which prides its self on Emergent Play - mining is the furtherest thing from it. Miners follow a rather droll script. Warp to the same belt, strip the same astroids and dock at the same station. The introduction of barges was a bad idea to start with and contra to the prime tenet of the game because they promote non-emergent play in both industralists and pirates that are miner focused. Can ORE faction ships just be removed once and for all? Solves AFK and botting in a single stroke.


Mining forms an important part of emergent gameplay.

It's about players deciding their own story, not everyone in the story can be Aragorn, Gimli, Frodo, Gandalf or Legolas. Some people need to be Sam, Merry and Pippin. Other still need to be the background cast like Orc #3.

There's nothing wrong inherently with mining, the problem is when CCP panders to the type of gameplay at the expense of other more interesting gameplay options.

The problem with this DevBlog is it's skirting the issue that CCP have massively buffed AFK mining without fixing the problem they set out to (namely most people only used one ship).

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli

Celgar Thurn
Department 10
#112 - 2012-12-11 11:47:16 UTC
In short the changes to mining from elimination of drone poo drops through to the mining ship re-balancing & new mining frigates were unnecessary and were a fix to a mining system that was largely UNBROKEN. To some peoples eyes mining was 'boring' but if they find something 'boring' then I suggest they do something else in New Eden.
A side effect of these changes(Largely the drone poo removal.) was the increase in the prices of high sec ores/minerals which was needed to make mining a more attractive career. I think probably the 'fixing' of mining process should probably have ceased at that point. I still don't understand the reasoning behind vastly increasing the amount of minerals needed to make ships and hope CCP don't carry this process through the full range of ships. If you carry this idea all the way through to Titans there will be epic 'QQ' from the nul-sec community.

I am still waiting for you fix something that is broken in EVE Online. Namely the Corp/Alliance 'Roles & Permissions' interface with a view to making it very user friendly. Also the 'Roles & Permissions' interaction with all elements of POSes (Player Owned Stations.) which will need to be fixed BEFORE modular POSes are implemented. Put user friendlyness before eye candy please. We all love eye candy but if something doesn't work it doesn't matter that it looks sexy. Blink
Furuoiur Aurgnet
Doomheim
#113 - 2012-12-14 05:04:34 UTC
Why do people have to suicide gank miners to begin with? I mind my own business and don't bother anybody else. I don't see the fun in killing somebody who has no way of defending or fighting back themselves. What a shame that his game has gotten to be so filled up with so much hatefulness for others. This game is getting to the point where i'm afraid to even talk to anybody because I don't want to be hunted for saying anything, I think CCP is pushing those that aren't interested in killing everything that moves away. Sad part the only thing I"ll probably get in a response to this is eumurgurd you're just a carebear because there is nothing else, asshatery is taking this game over.
Mara Tessidar
Perkone
Caldari State
#114 - 2012-12-14 07:40:43 UTC
Furuoiur Aurgnet wrote:
Why do people have to suicide gank miners to begin with? I mind my own business and don't bother anybody else. I don't see the fun in killing somebody who has no way of defending or fighting back themselves. What a shame that his game has gotten to be so filled up with so much hatefulness for others. This game is getting to the point where i'm afraid to even talk to anybody because I don't want to be hunted for saying anything, I think CCP is pushing those that aren't interested in killing everything that moves away. Sad part the only thing I"ll probably get in a response to this is eumurgurd you're just a carebear because there is nothing else, asshatery is taking this game over.


The point of Eve Online is to be an asshat, hth
Mara Tessidar
Perkone
Caldari State
#115 - 2012-12-14 07:41:59 UTC
Also I made about 3 billion ISK by shooting miners, that's probably another reason :thumbsup:
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#116 - 2012-12-15 20:29:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Gustav
Furuoiur Aurgnet wrote:
Why do people have to suicide gank miners to begin with? I mind my own business and don't bother anybody else. I don't see the fun in killing somebody who has no way of defending or fighting back themselves. What a shame that his game has gotten to be so filled up with so much hatefulness for others. This game is getting to the point where i'm afraid to even talk to anybody because I don't want to be hunted for saying anything, I think CCP is pushing those that aren't interested in killing everything that moves away. Sad part the only thing I"ll probably get in a response to this is eumurgurd you're just a carebear because there is nothing else, asshatery is taking this game over.

Because if we don't the miners will completely devalue their own profession due to over-mining.

Just look at the trends since the barge buff.

Economics wrote:
Value = Demand / Supply


As supply goes up, value goes down. The only way to counteract this trend is to either increase demand considerably or to reduce available supply.

High-sec ice miners want neither to happen. They want profits now. This can be seen through market analysis of all the ice products. They want this profit so badly that they're not only willing to ruin ice mining for future miners by creating an overwhelming glut of ice products, but also at the expense of their own rate of pay. Their activity has literally cost them the majority of their actual ISK paychecks.

This is simple economics which is beyond the "peaceful" world view of the bot-aspirant miner. By asking to not be interfered with, you are asking players and CCP to directly screw over players who haven't started playing Eve yet but who may wish to engage in mining as a career.

Yet we're the griefers...in a spaceship macroeconomics game...good one. Roll

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Dave stark
#117 - 2012-12-18 10:56:30 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:

Just look at the trends since the barge buff.


yeah, i mean the price of low ends doubling is terrible for us miners. :)
Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#118 - 2012-12-18 15:29:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Hakaru Ishiwara
Darth Gustav wrote:
Furuoiur Aurgnet wrote:
Why do people have to suicide gank miners to begin with?
*snip*

Because if we don't the miners will completely devalue their own profession due to over-mining.

Just look at the trends since the barge buff.
This is nonsense. A big war or bunch of super cap construction arrays will chew through quite a bit of excess minerals. AND the loss of minerals from the removal of drone droppings has got to be filled in somehow.

Furthermore, those in the north with nearly uncontested access to technetium moons (and possibly exhumer BPOs) have the potential to profit greatly from the market churn of those tech 2 mining barges. Your ganks are creating more of a market for the materials that you control.

So, any noble bullshit about helping the market and greater game economy through ganks, falls on deaf ears. That is not to say that ganks are not legitimate gameplay -- they are completely legit. But let's be truthful about things.


Darth Gustav wrote:
Economics wrote:
Value = Demand / Supply


As supply goes up, value goes down. The only way to counteract this trend is to either increase demand considerably or to reduce available supply.

High-sec ice miners want neither to happen. They want profits now. This can be seen through market analysis of all the ice products. They want this profit so badly that they're not only willing to ruin ice mining for future miners by creating an overwhelming glut of ice products, but also at the expense of their own rate of pay. Their activity has literally cost them the majority of their actual ISK paychecks.

This is simple economics which is beyond the "peaceful" world view of the bot-aspirant miner. By asking to not be interfered with, you are asking players and CCP to directly screw over players who haven't started playing Eve yet but who may wish to engage in mining as a career.

Yet we're the griefers...in a spaceship macroeconomics game...good one. Roll
And yet people are willing to pay the higher prices for ships in order to PvP or partake in other activities. It is not clear that your scenario of greater supply is taking place. And if it is, buyers are willing to shoulder the higher prices up to a point.

Utter bullshit when it comes to the 'noble' practice of ganking. Call it for what it is: griefing and profiteering from the market churn on tech 2 products. Again, those are legitimate activities in EVE, simply not of the noble type.

+++++++ I have never shed a tear for a fellow EVE player until now. Mark “Seleene” Heard's Blog Honoring Sean "Vile Rat" Smith.

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#119 - 2012-12-25 23:17:44 UTC
I'm going to start bumping this thread every couple of days or so until CCP admits to their mistake.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Balder Verdandi
Wormhole Sterilization Crew
#120 - 2012-12-27 06:49:03 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
I'm going to start bumping this thread every couple of days or so until CCP admits to their mistake.



Good luck my friend. It took CCP like 6 months to fix the Unified Inventory with absolutely no comments from the devs or staff.


And free bump and +1 for you as well.