These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

High Sec Hauling/Mining Kills - TY CCP for No Protection

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Angeal MacNova
Holefood Inc.
Warriors of the Blood God
#821 - 2014-08-31 18:15:18 UTC
Tippia wrote:

Quote:
when it takes more effort for people to start transporting stuff, less people will. when less people do, less stuff is available. when less stuff is available, the price goes up
…so more people start doing it, so supply goes up and prices go back down again. So if you're going to accuse people of not understanding something, make sure you've actually thought through what the effects are that you are desperately hoping for.


You can troll about a lot of things but to those like myself with an actual degree in economic, your attempts at the subject just come off as sad and pathetic.

He was semi right, just over simplified it. If the logistics involved become too excessive, the opportunity cost associated with it (along with the accounting cost associated with it) will push people out. I'm seeing the effects with my indy contacts who seem to have an increased interest in running L4s instead of mining.

It's called the supply/demand equilibrium and an increase to costs will cause a shift to the supply curve. The result is a new equilibrium at a higher price level and smaller moving quantity. With many of those previous suppliers moving toward running missions which generate new isk into the game. This will have a multiplier effect on the economies inflation rate as a whole and the player base as a whole is worse off.

Now you can dismiss as you which and reply as you like but keep in mind that your reply will be both dismissed and ignored (as in not replied to) on grounds that you quite obviously lack the education and experience on the subject for anything you have to say to hold any weight.

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/goodnight-sweet-prince/

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/the-untold-story/

CCP's true, butthurt, colors.

Because those who can't do themselves keep others from doing too.
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
#822 - 2014-08-31 18:15:41 UTC
Demonfist's avatar makes this all the better.

:popcorn:

Witty Image - Stream

Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
Demonfist
New Eden Capsuleer College
Higher Education
#823 - 2014-08-31 18:19:32 UTC
Angeal MacNova wrote:
Tippia wrote:

Quote:
when it takes more effort for people to start transporting stuff, less people will. when less people do, less stuff is available. when less stuff is available, the price goes up
…so more people start doing it, so supply goes up and prices go back down again. So if you're going to accuse people of not understanding something, make sure you've actually thought through what the effects are that you are desperately hoping for.


You can troll about a lot of things but to those like myself with an actual degree in economic, your attempts at the subject just come off as sad and pathetic.

He was semi right, just over simplified it. If the logistics involved become too excessive, the opportunity cost associated with it (along with the accounting cost associated with it) will push people out. I'm seeing the effects with my indy contacts who seem to have an increased interest in running L4s instead of mining.

It's called the supply/demand equilibrium and an increase to costs will cause a shift to the supply curve. The result is a new equilibrium at a higher price level and smaller moving quantity. With many of those previous suppliers moving toward running missions which generate new isk into the game. This will have a multiplier effect on the economies inflation rate as a whole and the player base as a whole is worse off.

Now you can dismiss as you which and reply as you like but keep in mind that your reply will be both dismissed and ignored (as in not replied to) on grounds that you quite obviously lack the education and experience on the subject for anything you have to say to hold any weight.


i don't think i oversimplified enough, they still didn't get it. Ugh

eBil Tycoon > we're more like megacapitalistic psychotic space cowboys with raging epeens and 3% real girls.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#824 - 2014-08-31 18:22:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Angeal MacNova wrote:
You can troll about a lot of things but to those like myself with an actual degree in economic, your attempts at the subject just come off as sad and pathetic.
So you agree then since you have to immediately go for the abuse rather than offer any kind of correction or insight.

Quote:
He was semi right, just over simplified it. If the logistics involved become too excessive
…which is where he got it wrong almost instantly. That's the whole point: he didn't just over-simplify it — he made up a scenario that is so ridiculous that it has no bearing on the situation at hand, and then he draw that non-scenario to an incorrect and rather ignorant conclusion.

Quote:
It's called the supply/demand equilibrium and an increase to costs will cause a shift to the supply curve. The result is a new equilibrium at a higher price level and smaller moving quantity. With many of those previous suppliers moving toward running missions which generate new isk into the game. This will have a multiplier effect on the economies inflation rate as a whole and the player base as a whole is worse off.
Yes. And? His point is still incorrect because it rests of fundamentally flawed and baseless assumptions, namely that more fewer people will transport stuff. We already know this not to be the case — people will happily fill any gap almost instantly and while there may be small disruptions in the market as a result of really concerted efforts such as hulkageddon or the isotope interdiction, the overproduction capacity and agility of the players involved means it bounces back pretty much instantly… at times while the supposedly disruptive effort is still going on.

Demonfist wrote:
i don't think i oversimplified enough, they still didn't get it. Ugh

No, you didn't oversimplify it enough — you were just wrong. People get it, they just also get that what you were saying was incorrect. This is the part you don't get, which is why you keep hearing that same phrase being repeated back to you over and over again…
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#825 - 2014-08-31 18:22:57 UTC
Angeal MacNova wrote:
He was semi right, just over simplified it. If the logistics involved become too excessive, the opportunity cost associated with it (along with the accounting cost associated with it) will push people out. I'm seeing the effects with my indy contacts who seem to have an increased interest in running L4s instead of mining.


Except that there is no evidence to suggest that ganking has ever, in recent history, made logistics particularly expensive.
For example, RedFrog still operates with low, low prices, which implies that they very rarely get ganked, as those prices include an internal insurance pool against ganking.

Also "mining" and "industry" are very different things.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#826 - 2014-08-31 18:23:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Angeal MacNova wrote:
Tippia wrote:

Quote:
when it takes more effort for people to start transporting stuff, less people will. when less people do, less stuff is available. when less stuff is available, the price goes up
…so more people start doing it, so supply goes up and prices go back down again. So if you're going to accuse people of not understanding something, make sure you've actually thought through what the effects are that you are desperately hoping for.


You can troll about a lot of things but to those like myself with an actual degree in economic, your attempts at the subject just come off as sad and pathetic.

Dr Eggnog (Eyjolfur Gudmundsson), former CCP economist and current Rektor (President) of the University of Akureyri would probably disagree with you. We know he's an economist, a respected one that has relevant experience with a hyper capitalist economy, we only have your word that you have a degree in economics.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#827 - 2014-08-31 18:23:34 UTC
Studio Ghibli wrote:
Hi, I'm a Provi-resident.

I like to mine. I mine with friends. We mine together. I discovered that mining in high-sec is kind of dangerous, though.

This morning, I was mining with friends in Providence. I moved there a few years back.

While I was reading this article, an aggressive pilot was reported in a Brutix one system over. We continued to mine.

The Brutix jumped into our system. We continued to mine.

The Brutix warped to me and my miner-friends, and he webbed and scrammed me--so I webbed and scrammed him back, and all three of us deployed our drones against him, and two stealth bombers decloaked and started nailing him with torpedoes.

And then we continued to mine.

The moral of this story?

If you can't do what you're doing where you are, go somewhere where you can do what you want to do.

No one is forcing you to live up in high-sec. If high-sec is untenable, move somewhere else.

And demanding the game cater to your expectations is silly, especially, when it is no mystery that EVE is a very mean and unforgiving game.

Equipping guns is silly, for sure. So tank your ship, or fly a tankier ship. DSTs--not just for deep space anymore.

In other news, looking for more miners. :)


Provi-Residents, they are better than you.
virm pasuul
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#828 - 2014-08-31 18:31:52 UTC
I'm thinking arguing with someone with such a large ego is a loosing battle.
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#829 - 2014-08-31 18:32:08 UTC
Demonfist wrote:
i just hope code realizes they're harassing the industrial backbone of the game, stealing isk from the people that mass produce it. it's generally not a good idea to **** off a group that could hire every merc outfit that exists if it had a mind to. but hey, i guess everyone needs content.


after two or three years of lying down and doing nothing but weep, the industrial backbone's finally woken to deliver a stern warning. in merely five or so short years, if CODE. hasn't stopped its belligerent yet charming antics, the industrial backbone will strongly begin to consider entertaining the thought of rising up and asking someone else to do their work for them. then CODE.'ll be sorry

you hear me, CODE.? your goose is cooked

BUCKO
DJentropy Ovaert
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#830 - 2014-08-31 18:42:10 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
If bumping is ever made a CONCORD offense, I will invest in salvage drones and MTUs and camp the Jita undock.


Which is (again) why I suggested that Bumping should not be a CONCORD offense, rather that victims of a (failed) gank attempt should have a 60 second immunity from Bumping once CONCORD arrives on the scene.



Awesome. So from now on, when I want any ship to be immune to bumping - I simply create a throwaway trial account and log in, shoot my freighter in a free Ibis, and enjoy 60 seconds of being immune to game mechanics.

I can't see anyone abusing that :P
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#831 - 2014-08-31 18:43:39 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Demonfist wrote:
i just hope code realizes they're harassing the industrial backbone of the game, stealing isk from the people that mass produce it. it's generally not a good idea to **** off a group that could hire every merc outfit that exists if it had a mind to. but hey, i guess everyone needs content.


after two or three years of lying down and doing nothing but weep, the industrial backbone's finally woken to deliver a stern warning. in merely five or so short years, if CODE. hasn't stopped its belligerent yet charming antics, the industrial backbone will strongly begin to consider entertaining the thought of rising up and asking someone else to do their work for them. then CODE.'ll be sorry

you hear me, CODE.? your goose is cooked

BUCKO



I bet CODE is scared now after this "stern warning" was given.

But seriously it would be nice for miners and haulers to learn some basic game mechanics and not be easy targets. Blowing up AFK miners and auto piloting haulers is boring.
Demonfist
New Eden Capsuleer College
Higher Education
#832 - 2014-08-31 18:44:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Demonfist
DJentropy Ovaert wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
If bumping is ever made a CONCORD offense, I will invest in salvage drones and MTUs and camp the Jita undock.


Which is (again) why I suggested that Bumping should not be a CONCORD offense, rather that victims of a (failed) gank attempt should have a 60 second immunity from Bumping once CONCORD arrives on the scene.



Awesome. So from now on, when I want any ship to be immune to bumping - I simply create a throwaway trial account and log in, shoot my freighter in a free Ibis, and enjoy 60 seconds of being immune to game mechanics.

I can't see anyone abusing that :P

yes, you would be free to do that. as would other people if they wished to spend the time for something so trivial.

you should probably get started making those accounts now. they only last two weeks each.

eBil Tycoon > we're more like megacapitalistic psychotic space cowboys with raging epeens and 3% real girls.
DJentropy Ovaert
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#833 - 2014-08-31 18:44:51 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Luckily I haven't lost a ship at all! I simply present again the absurd situation caused by the current game mechanics. "So you find it comprehensible that you and your CODE buddies would show up, try to gank an Orca, get it down to 20% structure, have CONCORD come and kill you and give you an aggression timer...and then do nothing as your buddies sit there for 15 minutes bumping it so it can't escape, with CONCORD at the scene, and then watch as the exact same gankers come right back and finish the job? Seriously? That even conceivably makes sense to you? I refuse to believe that anyone could find that a reasonable game mechanic in highsec."


Copying the same post over and over doesn't make it true. I addressed all of those points.

Laws in different jurisdictions are different. New Eden has different laws than the real world, and New Eden's capsuleer police (CONCORD) have an extremely limited, reactionary role which fits the laws of New Eden.

If you perform an act of illegal aggression in HS, CONCORD destroys your ship, docks you sec status, and gives you a 15min time out. That is their entire function. Their function has nothing to do with protecting anyone, simply with creating cost for illegal aggression in HS.

This is how the game was always intended to work and is how it works now.


This is the problem with Veers, and something that I have not figured out how to work around. You bring up valid points, he simply ignores them and repeats himself. Over and over again. It's depressing.
Demonfist
New Eden Capsuleer College
Higher Education
#834 - 2014-08-31 18:49:46 UTC
DJentropy Ovaert wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Luckily I haven't lost a ship at all! I simply present again the absurd situation caused by the current game mechanics. "So you find it comprehensible that you and your CODE buddies would show up, try to gank an Orca, get it down to 20% structure, have CONCORD come and kill you and give you an aggression timer...and then do nothing as your buddies sit there for 15 minutes bumping it so it can't escape, with CONCORD at the scene, and then watch as the exact same gankers come right back and finish the job? Seriously? That even conceivably makes sense to you? I refuse to believe that anyone could find that a reasonable game mechanic in highsec."


Copying the same post over and over doesn't make it true. I addressed all of those points.

Laws in different jurisdictions are different. New Eden has different laws than the real world, and New Eden's capsuleer police (CONCORD) have an extremely limited, reactionary role which fits the laws of New Eden.

If you perform an act of illegal aggression in HS, CONCORD destroys your ship, docks you sec status, and gives you a 15min time out. That is their entire function. Their function has nothing to do with protecting anyone, simply with creating cost for illegal aggression in HS.

This is how the game was always intended to work and is how it works now.


This is the problem with Veers, and something that I have not figured out how to work around. You bring up valid points, he simply ignores them and repeats himself. Over and over again. It's depressing.

this is the intarwebz. it's a valid tactic.

eBil Tycoon > we're more like megacapitalistic psychotic space cowboys with raging epeens and 3% real girls.
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers
#835 - 2014-08-31 18:52:59 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
Dorian Wylde wrote:
Try again.


Don't need to buddy, what I said is fact. Sorry if you don't agree. Smile




This is the ROLE I wish to see CCP in. Stand your Ground, You handle the game aspect and let the players run as they should in a Sandbox game. Whether we kick the castle down or build it, it's up to us. I am so happy finally seeing CCP and a very respect Dev ontop of that taking a Solid stance for once. Actually the last few "releases" I have seen them stand their ground and I love it. Start dealing with everyone and not Catering to the Tearfilled Entitled.
Demonfist
New Eden Capsuleer College
Higher Education
#836 - 2014-08-31 18:54:44 UTC
IIshira wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
Demonfist wrote:
i just hope code realizes they're harassing the industrial backbone of the game, stealing isk from the people that mass produce it. it's generally not a good idea to **** off a group that could hire every merc outfit that exists if it had a mind to. but hey, i guess everyone needs content.


after two or three years of lying down and doing nothing but weep, the industrial backbone's finally woken to deliver a stern warning. in merely five or so short years, if CODE. hasn't stopped its belligerent yet charming antics, the industrial backbone will strongly begin to consider entertaining the thought of rising up and asking someone else to do their work for them. then CODE.'ll be sorry

you hear me, CODE.? your goose is cooked

BUCKO



I bet CODE is scared now after this "stern warning" was given.

But seriously it would be nice for miners and haulers to learn some basic game mechanics and not be easy targets. Blowing up AFK miners and auto piloting haulers is boring.

then why do it at all?

eBil Tycoon > we're more like megacapitalistic psychotic space cowboys with raging epeens and 3% real girls.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#837 - 2014-08-31 18:57:00 UTC
Demonfist wrote:
then why do it at all?

Because if food flies into your mouth, you chew on it even if the process of it getting there isn't as exciting as an all-evening cook-off.
Celly S
Neutin Local LLC
#838 - 2014-08-31 19:01:22 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
Why should CCP provide protection for your haulage in high sec?

CONCORD offer a level of deterrent just the same as any law enforcement agency, but as with any police for they're reactive and punitive rather than proactive.

If you want your haulage to be safer, bring the guns. If you don't have any guns, sacrifice some of your profit margin and hire someone who has them to escort you.

Welcome to New Eden, you just learned a very valuable lesson in being prepared and covering your back.

Smile





BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Any time you undock your ship, regardless of the sec status of the space you are in, you put your ship at risk"

This simple truth is even given to pilots by the starter agents... (not in the direct form of the quote above though, but the message is there nonetheless) so my question is why would anyone forget that?

And where the hell is your head to play one of the most (situation-based) realistic games in the world and forget that there are criminals out there who want to shoot you???


I know I sound like the people who say HTFU, but I'm not trying to portray it that way, I simply am shocked that so many folks are acting as though they should have their hand held in the game...



o/
Celly Smunt

Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator.
Selene A Eos
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#839 - 2014-08-31 19:04:11 UTC
Shocked
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#840 - 2014-08-31 19:07:24 UTC
Demonfist wrote:
DJentropy Ovaert wrote:
This is the problem with Veers, and something that I have not figured out how to work around. You bring up valid points, he simply ignores them and repeats himself. Over and over again. It's depressing.

this is the intarwebz. it's a valid tactic.


Well, at least you're willing to admit that you have no interest in an actual debate or actually defending your claims.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon