These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

New dev blog: Anomalies revisited

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#181 - 2011-11-17 15:30:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
Tanya Powers wrote:
StukaBee wrote:
Evelgrivion wrote:
Ya Huei wrote:
They could always nerf those L4 Missions Twisted


It's far more important that they nerf Incursions.


Best to be on the safe side, nerf them both.


Nerf what, how?

What's the purpose of nerf those?

What result are you expecting from that nerf?

Isk flows far more from your null sec bots mining or rating in carriers/T3's than all high sec missioners put together so let me say: nerf carriers or T3's or null sec because of some assholes?

Stupid rabbits are really stupid


"My nullsec bots?" "My ratting carriers?"

I take offense to your bold accusations; I exercise, nor approve of either.

The point and purpose of such a nerf would be to reduce the net flow of ISK into the game. A net reduction of ISK flow into the game economy is where it starts and ends.
RaZor Flash
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#182 - 2011-11-17 15:33:43 UTC  |  Edited by: RaZor Flash
I posted a thread in test server feedback, but was told to move my results to this thread.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=34567

Theoretically if we could all use our current setup to run anomalies we will be making more isk per hour after patch because Greyscale buffed ISK:EHP.

This is theoretically and completely IGNORES our ability to actually to do the anomaly.

I was going to write something up about it in my other thread but Charles Edisson beat me to it

This buff to anomalies is a theoretical buff that completely ignores the ability of your ship to be able to run the anomalies. In other words, this buff was implemented poorly.


Charles Edisson wrote:
Doctor Ungabungas wrote:
Take a better ship. Complaining that there are 'too many ships' is the most ******** thing I've ever heard of, given that it's the ships that bring the money.


You're missing the point here, If you extrapolate the changes to an extreeme amount make an anom with 10,000BS and IF you manage to do it you get 10B isk.

What do you think the outcome of this is going to be, especialy in regions where the rats neut out your cap. YOU WILL DIE, Take 10 friends with you, you still all die. Take 10 friends with you in the fanciest most pimped out ships in the game you still all die.

isk from ratting is all about the rate at which you can kill the rats and the value of the rats. There is a tipping point between there not being enough NPCs to kill to make isk quickly and too many NPCs so that you cant kill them very quickly. He is saying that in atleast some Anomalies the changes on Sisi have pushed them over this tipping point.


How to fix: The anomalies that exist should be the same level of difficulty as they were before patch. The way to do this and increase ISK:EHP is to simply add more waves, and not increase the # of ships per wave.

TL:DR We cannot have our current killing power in the current anomalies so even though ISK:EHP ratio has been increased our ability to kill rats has decreased. We will make LESS ISK PER HOUR

Edit: This is all assuming the point of this is to make getting isk in 0.0 better, if its not, then I might as well create an incursion alt that I can play to fund my desire to be part of an alliance in 0.0, shortly after doing this I might as well quit the game.

Edit 2: I have run a lot of different anomalies and It appears that you front loaded all the battleships, BCs, and hacs into the initial spawns instead of dividing them equally among the spawns. In other words, I would probably shut up if you just fixed the initial spawn and trigger for the next waves. Anomalies should get harder as you progress not easier /boggle.
Neo Agricola
Gallente Federation
#183 - 2011-11-17 15:45:08 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
A game without risk for reward is bereft of value and devoid of entertainment that's worth more than a giggle.

I was talking about Risk v Reward in regards of Highsec vs. 0.0.

Evelgrivion wrote:

Yes, CCP has to be careful, yes I know this won't drive anyone into 0.0 from highsec if high sec is the game they are looking to play; that is not the goal. The purpose of an income nerf is to make nullsec the most desirable place to live so the most competitive players have something to do, without resorting to even more, endless, inflation.

And you want to do it with buffing Highsec despite the fact, that most ISK are out of 0.0.
Meaning, you destroy the water, so there are no more fires... ^^

DISSONANCE is recruiting Members: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=706442#post706442 Black-Mark Alliance Recruitment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6710
The Crimson Invaider
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#184 - 2011-11-17 15:49:46 UTC
Dear CCP Greyscale,


I once openly stated I would shank you for basically turning the average dudes life in a 0.0 sov holding alliance into dirt farmers during the 1930's. This step forward would be very much welcome after your inbetween csm ninjaing of your nerf, which not only made upgrading a system with ihub ugrades useless, but also a gigantic waste of time/money and effort.



Please bear in mind when redressing the balance of risk/reward by the guys who sweat blood and tears taking space, that we spend a lot of time and money upgrading these systems, with little to no effect currently. Please bear this in mind while you are planning your balance of this feature and remember that the security status/rating/whatever of the system should be negated when a system is upgraded when it comes to anomaly spawn rate/amount.
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#185 - 2011-11-17 15:59:58 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
Tanya Powers wrote:
StukaBee wrote:
Evelgrivion wrote:
Ya Huei wrote:
They could always nerf those L4 Missions Twisted


It's far more important that they nerf Incursions.


Best to be on the safe side, nerf them both.


Nerf what, how?

What's the purpose of nerf those?

What result are you expecting from that nerf?

Isk flows far more from your null sec bots mining or rating in carriers/T3's than all high sec missioners put together so let me say: nerf carriers or T3's or null sec because of some assholes?

Stupid rabbits are really stupid


"My nullsec bots?" "My ratting carriers?"

I take offense to your bold accusations; I exercise, nor approve of either.

The point and purpose of such a nerf would be to reduce the net flow of ISK into the game. A net reduction of ISK flow into the game economy is where it starts and ends.


You can take offence of whatever you want, no one playing this game now for at least one year will ever believe high sec is where isk flows.

Your opinion about high sec missioning and high sec isk flow is totally non sense. Every other argument you may add is null since the first one is the biggest lie you stated.

You want to reduce the isk flow in game?

Where it starts:
-change how moon goo works, make it deplete, make it like PI, random respawn
-take drone alloys out of the game
-change how corporations/alliances finances work - it's their players that should be rich not the corporation it self

Where it ends.

Once this is done come back in one year and tell again high sec is where isk flows. You can argue whatever, no one playing the game for a while can seriously consider your statements.
Neo Agricola
Gallente Federation
#186 - 2011-11-17 16:08:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Neo Agricola
Tanya Powers wrote:

-change how moon goo works, make it deplete, make it like PI, random respawn
-take drone alloys out of the game
-change how corporations/alliances finances work - it's their players that should be rich not the corporation it self



Gratz. You found those thing which is not making any isk at all :-)
Any sort of Mining (inkl. Moongo) will not generate ISK in game.

the only ways to generate ISK are:

- Bounty
- Mission Reward
- Incursion Reward
(at least those I'm aware of)

And the Ano-Bounty was the biggest source of ISK Generating.

And by the way:

we are not talking about ISK-Flow we are talking about ISK Generation.

for clarification: ISK Generation is the way to add isk to the EVE economy. (not: How I get more Isk)

DISSONANCE is recruiting Members: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=706442#post706442 Black-Mark Alliance Recruitment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6710
Malakai Draevyn
Internet SpaceShips Is Serious Business
#187 - 2011-11-17 16:14:36 UTC
Here's a quick overview of what we've been doing in the Drone Regions for the last 7 months.

One carrier tanks the Drone Horde, 2 carriers to provide DPS, one Noctis to salvage - to kill and salvage everything takes approximately 14-17 minutes, and gains us approximately 23-28 million isk worth of alloys, plus a sentient drone (random spawn, may or may not drop anything of worth), plus the chance for an escalation (the bookmark for which can be sold)

Using the same assets, the same Drone Horde on Sisi just took us 37 minutes to complete, for the same amount of alloys, mainly due to the change in spawning pattern.

Bottom line - the Drone Regions just got hit with a 50-plus percent isk/hour nerf.

With the number of people in the DRF who are mainly doing these anomalies for isk generation, I can only see a situation where people will not be able to double the amount of time needed to maintain their accounts through PLEX, and thus accounts will be allowed to drop into a dormant state.

Less PLEX being bought for these accounts = Less rl cash hitting CCP's accounts.

Extrapolated figures from the situation as I can see it at the moment, I am looking at dropping 2 of my 4 accounts. If everyone else in the drone regions does the same, then this is approximately 2-3000 accounts which have the potential of being closed.

Well done. This has probably just cost CCP the sum of 25-35,000 USD a month.

If the intent is to 'make the drone regions more in line with how the other anomalies work' then quite frankly drop the alloys and give twice as many isk in the way of bounties.

Not Happy.
Mograthi
#188 - 2011-11-17 16:16:01 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Drone region anomalies weren't touched as part of this specific project - we're just balancing on bounty payout this time around and as drones don't have a bounty, we still don't have the tools to properly assess their worth.


Not exactly true there dude. The change to the bunker horde does amount to a Nerf for those of us in the drone regions.

Just some numbers from my personal experience,

When i am being slow and casual i can do 3 of the bunker hordes an hour and when I am in grind mode i can manage 4 an hour, many of my corp mates can do the same numbers. On an average we can earn 30 million per horde with the poo droppings, so we are averaging 90 - 120 mil an hour. With the change on SISI, we can on average do 2 of these an hour now for 60 mil an hour since the drops were not increased. This means that we are taking a 30% to 50% Nerf in income per hour whilst all the bounty rat regions are getting a buff in isk per hour.

Now I am fine with the change to the horde as it was kind of silly to begin with, but really you should modify the loot table at the same time to account for the change. Unlike many in the area I would be perfectly happy if you changed the drones to be bounty rats, my security status could use in an increase so I can use all those shiny new tier 3 BC's to gank miners with.
mkint
#189 - 2011-11-17 16:18:47 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Ingvar Angst wrote:
Have you considered, if I may, the possibility that distribution is one of the main problems in null? By grouping the best into pockets of null you encourage mega-alliances to control those specific pockets leaving surrounding areas much more devoid. It may be worth considering changing the sec stat of many systems to lower in order to smear the best systems across much larger areas of space... areas too large for the megas to claim all of without stretching themselves too thin. This would open even more space for smaller alliances to try and get a foothold in... space that would really be worth going for and not the sloppy seconds of the megas.

Just a thought.


This is pretty much by design. There need to be incentives for powerful alliances to claim manageable chunks of space and settle down there, both because it acts as one motivation to fight, and because getting big powerful alliances to settle down somewhere rich is one of the main tools we have for giving them an expiry date (see: Deklein). On top of that, space that's really worth going for doesn't get generally get settled by new alliances, it gets settled by old alliances. It's only by creating areas of space that older richer alliances consider "worthless" that we can create places where new alliances can learn the ropes without getting stomped on.

And how well has that worked out for ya?

The one REAL problem with null is that it is stagnant. It's stagnant by design. It looks like you're designing for people who benefit from stagnant. The only people who benefit from stagnant are RMTers. That alone makes EVE not worth playing, not for anyone.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Neo Agricola
Gallente Federation
#190 - 2011-11-17 16:22:07 UTC
mkint wrote:

The only people who benefit from stagnant are RMTers. That alone makes EVE not worth playing, not for anyone.


With the current PLEX-Prices thery aren't happy at all.

Coincidence?

DISSONANCE is recruiting Members: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=706442#post706442 Black-Mark Alliance Recruitment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6710
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#191 - 2011-11-17 16:31:13 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Greyscale
S8nt wrote:
CCP Greyscale,

With regards to ISK coming in and out it might be constant. But could you please tell me why mineral prices have fallen so much since 2008. Mega if I am correct was at around 3400 a unit and Zid was at 2600 a unit. Those two minerals now in Jita is at around 2700 for Mega and 775 for Zydrine. How has that stayed constant since 2008? How does ratting compare to mining?

Could you please comment.

S8nt


I don't have any info on that to hand, sorry. I can speculate with the best of them, but I don't have anything concrete and the speculation is all pretty obvious stuff anyway.

Arkady Sadik wrote:
I can see how that might be difficult, as their worth depends on market price. But I think it would be really useful to do that, as some NPCs have subjectively quite different value due to salvage (Serpentis vs. Angels, say). You should be able to get "average market price" for minerals, drops and salvage quite easily, so that measure would not be too difficult to implement (I think :-)).

It might also be interesting to start measuring "average completion time" for anomalies. This will give you a better measure than EHP, and even more importantly, it will point out which NPCs are disproportionally "more difficult" than others - either increasing their payout slightly, or being a point of reference for game balancing.

(NB: It's not entirely bad to have "differently-difficult" NPCs in general, as that is another factor for making space "worth more" or "worth less", but it'd be good to have that in sight for game balance)


The tricky bit once we start factoring market price stuff is that market prices change over time, so the assumptions we make right now won't necessarily hold true in future, whereas isk is isk. It is something we want to look into extending our tools into, but it becomes a much fuzzier area of balance.

And yes, getting better metrics on things like completion times is high up on our to-log list :)
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#192 - 2011-11-17 16:34:48 UTC
Mograthi wrote:

Not exactly true there dude. The change to the bunker horde does amount to a Nerf for those of us in the drone regions.

Just some numbers from my personal experience,

When i am being slow and casual i can do 3 of the bunker hordes an hour and when I am in grind mode i can manage 4 an hour, many of my corp mates can do the same numbers. On an average we can earn 30 million per horde with the poo droppings, so we are averaging 90 - 120 mil an hour. With the change on SISI, we can on average do 2 of these an hour now for 60 mil an hour since the drops were not increased. This means that we are taking a 30% to 50% Nerf in income per hour whilst all the bounty rat regions are getting a buff in isk per hour.

Now I am fine with the change to the horde as it was kind of silly to begin with, but really you should modify the loot table at the same time to account for the change. Unlike many in the area I would be perfectly happy if you changed the drones to be bounty rats, my security status could use in an increase so I can use all those shiny new tier 3 BC's to gank miners with.


This wasn't changed as part of this project, this was changed as part of a bugfix. They're both going out in Crucible, so the timing's pretty unfortunate, but it's a separate issue. And again, the amount of money being made in this way was way higher than intended, that's part of the reason for making the change in the first place (the other part being that it was possible to totally break the site, of course).

RaZor Flash wrote:
I posted a thread in test server feedback, but was told to move my results to this thread.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=34567

Theoretically if we could all use our current setup to run anomalies we will be making more isk per hour after patch because Greyscale buffed ISK:EHP.

This is theoretically and completely IGNORES our ability to actually to do the anomaly.

I was going to write something up about it in my other thread but Charles Edisson beat me to it

This buff to anomalies is a theoretical buff that completely ignores the ability of your ship to be able to run the anomalies. In other words, this buff was implemented poorly.


Charles Edisson wrote:
Doctor Ungabungas wrote:
Take a better ship. Complaining that there are 'too many ships' is the most ******** thing I've ever heard of, given that it's the ships that bring the money.


You're missing the point here, If you extrapolate the changes to an extreeme amount make an anom with 10,000BS and IF you manage to do it you get 10B isk.

What do you think the outcome of this is going to be, especialy in regions where the rats neut out your cap. YOU WILL DIE, Take 10 friends with you, you still all die. Take 10 friends with you in the fanciest most pimped out ships in the game you still all die.

isk from ratting is all about the rate at which you can kill the rats and the value of the rats. There is a tipping point between there not being enough NPCs to kill to make isk quickly and too many NPCs so that you cant kill them very quickly. He is saying that in atleast some Anomalies the changes on Sisi have pushed them over this tipping point.


How to fix: The anomalies that exist should be the same level of difficulty as they were before patch. The way to do this and increase ISK:EHP is to simply add more waves, and not increase the # of ships per wave.

TL:DR We cannot have our current killing power in the current anomalies so even though ISK:EHP ratio has been increased our ability to kill rats has decreased. We will make LESS ISK PER HOUR

Edit: This is all assuming the point of this is to make getting isk in 0.0 better, if its not, then I might as well create an incursion alt that I can play to fund my desire to be part of an alliance in 0.0, shortly after doing this I might as well quit the game.

Edit 2: I have run a lot of different anomalies and It appears that you front loaded all the battleships and hacs into the initial spawns instead of dividing them equally among the spawns. In other words, I would probably shut up if you just fixed the initial spawn and trigger for the next waves. Anomalies should get harder as you progress not easier /boggle.



I asked people to stick to the feedback thread in no small part because I'd already responded to your earlier post here requesting specific examples so I could better understand the problem :)

Yes, theoretically if we put 10,000 battleships in a site it would be uncompleteable, but we haven't done that. If you can tell us what actual sites you've tested with what actual setups and ships, then we can look into it further. For example, when you're talking about adding ships to the first wave, there's only a limited number of dungeons that was done to - in most cases we did simple substitution so this problem won't manifest, and I'm guessing this isn't a problem for the lower-end sites because they shouldn't be that difficult even with these changes, so it's probably one or two specific dungeons that we can potentially troubleshoot rather than a universal problem.

(The reason waves are added to the beginning of rooms is mainly because it makes the changes easier and therefore faster to do and less likely to break, but it's also I think true that your PvP risk increases as your time in the site increases, so frontloading the PvE danger seems safer overall. In any case, it's not like anyone's consistently running sites that have a reasonable chance of killing them anyway, so while I agree in principle and in isolation an escalating difficulty makes sense, in practice we believe it has minimal impact on the actual play experience.)
Malakai Draevyn
Internet SpaceShips Is Serious Business
#193 - 2011-11-17 16:42:13 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


This wasn't changed as part of this project, this was changed as part of a bugfix. They're both going out in Crucible, so the timing's pretty unfortunate, but it's a separate issue. And again, the amount of money being made in this way was way higher than intended, that's part of the reason for making the change in the first place (the other part being that it was possible to totally break the site, of course).



Giving the bunkers 5-10x more HP would have probably fixed the 'one shot pop / no spawn' issue, surely ?
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#194 - 2011-11-17 16:53:37 UTC
I'd like to see less ISK pinatas, and other solutions for ISK Faucet in Null Sec! :P


As long as we're improving ISK pinatas can we get a special effect where green and glittery dollar bills fly out of the NPC spaceships and leave a glitter trail as they float towards your ship auto-magically to represent the money being made?

Pirate

Where I am.
Largo Coronet
Perkone
Caldari State
#195 - 2011-11-17 16:57:53 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

Jojo Yohan wrote:
What about the nerf to the Drone Horde anomaly that is currently on Sisi. It appears that you're cutting down the ISK/hour by at least a factor of 2 on that one.


Drone Horde was a separate issue - those sites were breaking completely if you one-shotted the bunkers. It was also never intended that you could speed up the completion rate by spawning all the NPCs at once, so that was corrected as part of the bugfix. This site should now be more in line with other comparable anomalies and with the original design intent.
And to think I'd do that to folks running the things just to be a ****. Twisted

This is my signature. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.

Someday, this signature may save my life.
Largo Coronet
Perkone
Caldari State
#196 - 2011-11-17 17:05:46 UTC
RaZor Flash wrote:

This is theoretically and completely IGNORES our ability to actually to do the anomaly.
My alliance has run the new anoms on Sisi. The same tanked ships I use on Tranq work just fine. Hell, if you're flying Gallente, your blasters will chew through them even faster.

You really should try Sisi. It's where you can find out the answers instead of posting here and wasting your time. That's what it's there for.

This is my signature. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.

Someday, this signature may save my life.
Mograthi
#197 - 2011-11-17 17:06:58 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


This wasn't changed as part of this project, this was changed as part of a bugfix. They're both going out in Crucible, so the timing's pretty unfortunate, but it's a separate issue. And again, the amount of money being made in this way was way higher than intended, that's part of the reason for making the change in the first place (the other part being that it was possible to totally break the site, of course).


I will buy that it is a bug fix occurring at an unfortunate time.

This doesn't resolve the perception that you are nerfing or ignoring the drone anomalies at the same time you buff the bounty rat anomalies. I realize that it is harder to balance the drone ones in line with the bounty ones due to the fact that the reward is reliant on the market price of minerals and poo but i would hope that some attempt is made before deployment.


Avila Cracko
#198 - 2011-11-17 17:14:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Avila Cracko
Question for CCP:

Are you going to do anything to help mineral market in EVE???

prices or minerals are at bottom... and there is too much mineral faucets in EVE...
that's hurting all industry in EVE, ship and modules diversity in EVE and EVE itself...
Look at drones and tell me how isn't it wrong that raven is better miner then any miner... how is it logic that more minerals in EVE is coming from killing things then from mining...
how is logic that you get more materials to build a plane by shooting a plane than by mining???
Re-balance eve a little...
And stop killing industry in EVE... and with it EVE itself...

And... you know... EVE is not only pew-pew...
read and not pew-pew ppl opinions...
and so something for them sometimes...

truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#199 - 2011-11-17 17:22:06 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
...

Louis deGuerre wrote:
I find it hard to get an idea about the impact of this, but I am glad something has been done.

What I would really like to see is dynamic distribution of anomalies according to space usage. Too much killing in one system, less sites, abandoned systems, more sites. This would do wonders for 0.0, force players to move around (thinking of botting here too !), more kills on gates, it would solve so many problems...

Peace


The problem with this sort of approach is that it pushes people away from settling down and towards a more hunter-gatherer lifestyle, which isn't currently the direction we want nullsec to be generally moving in.
...
What direction is that? With potentially three changes to the anomaly system w/in the course of a year, entities looking to make new strategic investments will think twice about developing systems that may or may not be worth using (or renting) in a short while.

Also, how does CCP define "hunter-gatherer?" I am genuinely curious in the context of EVE game-play.

My definition of hunter-gatherer in the context of practical, hands-on EVE game-play is this:

Base out of 1 - 2 systems in a particular region or constellation, exploring, ratting and sometimes even PvP'ing across that constellation and nearby constellations / regions. In this space, I will hunt down rats (and players), gathering the spoils of my activities to be used back in the central staging system(s) or exported elsewhere. In some cases, this behavior might allow me to take advantage of high-value system upgrades for anomalies and exploration. In some cases, not.

The aforementioned behaviors are also exhibited by many of my alliance mates, most of whom you might consider to be "settled down" and tied to one area in the game.

Also, the more fluid example of PvE provided by Louis deGuerre above is actually how null-sec PvE activities work. Even the best systems get over populated or exploration sites get gobbled up post-DT and people range out to hunt down and gather resources.

Spend some time in Null-Sec or talking to null-sec residents. You will have a better idea of how the EVE game works and how players exist w/in the EVE frame-work. And as demeaning as that sounds, your written communication still paints you as having a very limited idea of how your customers behave in your product. Perhaps a video blog might help you communicate better?

+++++++ I have never shed a tear for a fellow EVE player until now. Mark “Seleene” Heard's Blog Honoring Sean "Vile Rat" Smith.
mkint
#200 - 2011-11-17 17:28:40 UTC
Avila Cracko wrote:
Question for CCP:

Are you going to do anything to help mineral market in EVE???

prices or minerals are at bottom... and there is too much mineral faucets in EVE...
that's hurting all industry in EVE, ship and modules diversity in EVE and EVE itself...
Look at drones and tell me how isn't it wrong that raven is better miner then any miner... how is it logic that more minerals in EVE is coming from killing things then from mining...
how is logic that you get more materials to build a plane by shooting a plane than by mining???
Re-balance eve a little...
And stop killing industry in EVE... and with it EVE itself...

And... you know... EVE is not only pew-pew...
read and not pew-pew ppl opinions...
and so something for them sometimes...

Mineral faucets have been DECREASED over the past year. You're missing the other side of the equation. Sinks.

There's nothing in EVE worth fighting over, so people are not fighting, so minerals are not being destroyed, so supply is outpacing demand, so prices are dropping.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.