These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Change Mineral Abundance to Scarcity

Author
Cade Windstalker
#21 - 2017-06-23 16:38:59 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Inflation isn't actually a major driver of the mineral market.
All the big moves in the mineral market have been directly related to a mineral consumption or production change. I.E. Tiericide of ships, Changes to Capitals, Citadels, Barge changes, Rorqual changes, changes to Null ore composition.

Mainly because EVE actually (till last month) hasn't had very much inflation, and mineral market trends have continued steady even when the isk supply has flipped into deflation, which says it's not the primary control on the market.


In the short term, yes, but over the long term if you look at the prices in the mineral basket as a whole vs the overall money supply the two correlate fairly strongly. Big shifts like rebalances and supply shifts cause immediate changes, the effects of inflation are only felt on the scale of year over year price differences. For comparison the price of Trit before the Rorqual changes was around 6 per unit, but back around 2010 it was around 3 per unit and it took over two years, till around 2012, for it to creep up to around 6 and stay between 5 and 6 until quite recently when the Rorqual changes caused the current oversupply.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#22 - 2017-06-23 19:04:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Axure Abbacus wrote:
Eve currently has a system where fighting over resources only happens at moons. All other materials are in infinite supply. In order to dry up the mineral market and drive conflict I propose drastically scaling back mining belt regeneration during downtime. Have Belts fully reset once a week on Sunday morning. The rest of the week only regenerate 10% of full value of belts.


Supply is not infinite. Hell it isn't even perfectly elastic.

This is why the idea is terrible. The premise is not even remotely true at all.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#23 - 2017-06-23 19:10:36 UTC
Axure Abbacus wrote:
Terrible, no i would have to disagree with you on that. Realistically you are over estimating the effect a change to belts would effect EVE.

There is a huge difference between the minerals mined and minerals available in eve. You can look at any monthly economic report and see where and how much mining activity is happening and adapt to where isn't being mined out.

The good players would adapt to being a mobile strip mining fleet. The risk vs reward would drastically improve for miners. This doesn't affect anomalies spawns and doesn't totally eliminate belts. The amount of Cached minerals currently would more then cover any bump in the market and there has been mention of moon mining also adding ABC ore to the mix.

This totally would be a win/win for the Economy. The amount of available minerals and produced items compared to destroyed has been sitting at a ratio of 4 to 1 for years. Mining could come to a screeching halt and it would be years before you would have issues reshipping. Give it some more thought and look over the data or just look for mined out belts.

This would be a good start to a healthy thriving economy.


How is this a "win/win"? We have less to do, less stuff to build with, and less reason to engage in PvP?

I'm trying to see just the "win" let alone the "win/win".

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Axure Abbacus
Pentex Subsidiaries Corp
Pentex Subsidiaries Corp Alliance
#24 - 2017-06-23 23:14:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Axure Abbacus
Teckos Pech wrote:


How is this a "win/win"? We have less to do, less stuff to build with, and less reason to engage in PvP?

I'm trying to see just the "win" let alone the "win/win".


You, and everyone else it Correct. Thank you. Yes my logic and presentation skills were impaired and i do see where it came from.

"The study suggests that strategically controlled environments, by creating product uncertainty, are able to motivate behaviors such as urgency to buy. It is further suggested that urgency to buy is mediated by emotions like anticipated regret that these retailers are able to successfully generate in the mind of the consumer. Further, scarcity communicated by the retailer threatens consumers’ freedom, thus triggering psychological reactance and encouraging them to take immediate actions like in–store hoarding and in–store hiding, to safeguard their behavioral freedom. The study also takes into account individual traits like competitiveness, hedonic shopping motivations, and need for uniqueness, and examines their influence on consumers’ behavioral responses. "

Taken from (http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=businessdiss)

I will Update the OP.

It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid.

Axure Abbacus
Pentex Subsidiaries Corp
Pentex Subsidiaries Corp Alliance
#25 - 2017-06-24 00:14:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Axure Abbacus
Teckos Pech wrote:
Axure Abbacus wrote:
Eve currently has a system where fighting over resources only happens at moons. All other materials are in infinite supply. In order to dry up the mineral market and drive conflict I propose drastically scaling back mining belt regeneration during downtime. Have Belts fully reset once a week on Sunday morning. The rest of the week only regenerate 10% of full value of belts.


Supply is not infinite. Hell it isn't even perfectly elastic.

This is why the idea is terrible. The premise is not even remotely true at all.


Yes, the idea was flawed. Thank you.

I was taking into account the the available resources on a macro level and looking at the overall system utilization per capita. With an average of 30,000 pilots logged on across 8k systems the mean population density would be 3.75 pilots per system. Even if you increased the averaged pilots logged on to 80,000 that would only move the base count to 10 pilots per system. I don't know how high of a population the Eve cluster was designed for but it looks like we could easily support well above 250,000 logged on an active pilots across the cluster.

Many systems go unused for various reasons, including a lack of a station in the system but with Citadels you can move into any system.

It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid.

Lienzo
Amanuensis
#26 - 2017-06-24 04:48:26 UTC
It would not be unreasonable if finding reliable ore deposits was increasingly possible with the aid of a drilling rig or some analogous structure. An ore, or rather, asteroid belt field prospecting array might as well be a physical thing, the value of which could scale with its utility.

The current system of infrastructure hub upgrade mechanics just isn't very interactive. There is the index, but that doesn't really represent an investment stratagem, outside of time. Time doesn't count because you can't save it for later, or put it on the line. It spends itself. It has to be isk.

Hostile actors need something to attack besides just players in space. Infrastructure hubs have an uniform attack profile, and so reduce the range of options available to harassing forces. They are a relic of Dominion that could stand to play a reduced role. Sov may well have some future, but it would be better if it simply synergized with deployed structures.

Having individual upgrades be physical deployables means that you can scale up the cost of them at each level of utility, as well as the cost of not defending them. They are already manufactured items, so it's just a matter of reusing some of the old soon to be obsolete POS module skins.

Any way that we can remove data available to ship sensors and move it to structures sounds good to me. We have way too much information at our disposal, and knowing too much just enables risk avoidant behavior or repetitive time/isk maximizing strategies. Nerf the players.
Axure Abbacus
Pentex Subsidiaries Corp
Pentex Subsidiaries Corp Alliance
#27 - 2017-06-25 23:04:52 UTC
After getting some solid sleep I will continue with this concept.

By creating a situation where the availability of building materials is far more dynamic could lead to a more volatile market. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Variation in the availability of materials generates opportunity for profit or loss. Several people of voiced their concerns and they are valid. Additional information would be required to successfully implement a level of acceptable market flux.

The current system of belts does leave much to static constraints. Scarcity, even superficial scarcity could generate additional interest in the mineral markets and some additional friendly competition. Additional mechanics involving increasing the chances of profitable spawns by stripping belts could lead to more players to group mining or further concentrate industrial efforts. There is much room to play with in mining to add interesting content and alter the perception of mining as a whole.

Thank you all for adding so much to this thread. I hope I didn't come off too inept.

http://www.bankers-anonymous.com/blog/volatility-in-stocks-thats-a-good-thing/

It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid.

Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries
VOID Intergalactic Forces
#28 - 2017-06-27 17:47:12 UTC
Great idea! not.
lets decrease mineral production by allowing only 1 full regen a week while every system is stripped clean of bots and npc fleets.
wait, while have regen at all and just let the ore market die instead

"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith

Axure Abbacus
Pentex Subsidiaries Corp
Pentex Subsidiaries Corp Alliance
#29 - 2017-06-27 19:59:47 UTC
Agondray wrote:
Great idea! not.
lets decrease mineral production by allowing only 1 full regen a week while every system is stripped clean of bots and npc fleets.
wait, while have regen at all and just let the ore market die instead

TL/DR? It's cool. The universe will end some how. Choose your destroyer. Thank you for playing.

It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid.

Xzanos
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#30 - 2017-06-29 20:25:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Xzanos
Just my two cents to keep the post going as i would also like to see some kind of change in mineral distribution.

I had an idea at one point that would "push" material around new eden. The way it is now most asteroid belts don't even get touched. The mining fleets are set up where they want to , mine out the belts and repeat.

What if mining out a belt moved or even just a single rock "pushed" those roids to other areas of the game? This would constantly fluctuate the supply in different regions of space while not being a system based solidly on a re spawn timer that is easy to farm. You may warp to a belt one day to find it devoid but then a week later it could be so full of rocks you couldn't possibly mine it all.

Obviously no idea is perfect and there would have to be some method of keeping the exact system a secret to prevent players from knowing how and where the roids are pushed around.

*activates thermal hardeners for incoming flame

Axure Abbacus
Pentex Subsidiaries Corp
Pentex Subsidiaries Corp Alliance
#31 - 2017-06-29 22:26:40 UTC
Agondray wrote:
Great idea! not.
lets decrease mineral production by allowing only 1 full regen a week while every system is stripped clean of bots and npc fleets.
wait, while have regen at all and just let the ore market die instead

Axure Abbacus wrote:
[Eve currently has a system where fighting over resources only happens at moons. All other materials are in infinite supply. In order to dry up the mineral market and drive conflict I propose drastically scaling back mining belt regeneration during downtime. Have Belts fully reset once a week on Sunday morning. The rest of the week only regenerate 10% of full value of belts. ]

This Idea is Flawed. While rooting in basic Economic and Consumer behavior manipulation principals, it was poorly thought through and presented.

Make mining more dynamic to add a sense of scarcity and interesting level of competition. The Ice Harvesting changes from Odyssey is a good approach that could be taken with Ore.

-Reduce belt yield by 77+/-% (1-3T value per region?)
-Increase chance of Ore Anomalies by 33%
-Increase chance of C1-C2 Worm holes by 33%

The concept was discussed with several other pilots and various valid points were made. After considering the concept,the revised concept was reducing belt sizes and offsetting yields with access to higher yield anomalies and wormholes. This may or may not negatively effect bottling granted programmers have kept up with changes in Eve. It would make it different somewhat for high security bot fleets. So what if belts are mined out by bots if the belts are smaller and require more bot setup in more systems? Active miners could find better content.

Thank you for your brief interest.

It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid.

Frostys Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#32 - 2017-06-30 13:34:54 UTC
Xzanos wrote:
Just my two cents to keep the post going as i would also like to see some kind of change in mineral distribution.

I had an idea at one point that would "push" material around new eden. The way it is now most asteroid belts don't even get touched. The mining fleets are set up where they want to , mine out the belts and repeat.

What if mining out a belt moved or even just a single rock "pushed" those roids to other areas of the game? This would constantly fluctuate the supply in different regions of space while not being a system based solidly on a re spawn timer that is easy to farm. You may warp to a belt one day to find it devoid but then a week later it could be so full of rocks you couldn't possibly mine it all.

Obviously no idea is perfect and there would have to be some method of keeping the exact system a secret to prevent players from knowing how and where the roids are pushed around.


Why would I ever invest ISK to upgrade my space if all my upgrade do is "push" resources to someone else's space?
Axure Abbacus
Pentex Subsidiaries Corp
Pentex Subsidiaries Corp Alliance
#33 - 2017-06-30 15:39:20 UTC
Xzanos wrote:
Just my two cents to keep the post going as i would also like to see some kind of change in mineral distribution

The mineral distribution is a game balance created to induce cross regional trade. Ore anomalies are the ore pushed around you are looking for. So it "does" happen, just not to belts.

Frostys Virpio wrote:

Why would I ever invest ISK to upgrade my space if all my upgrade do is "push" resources to someone else's space?

You don't because Sov Space is different. You spend Isk to control the very nature of your territory, which makes this specific concept irrelevant in Sov space. Random occurrences are beneath you. Cool

It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid.

James Zimmer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#34 - 2017-07-02 20:25:19 UTC
I can see the appeal of creating greater conflict over resources, but I don't think this really helps that very well. I think the market would adjust to this by increasing the price of minerals, resulting in people melting down ratting loot to meet the demand.

I think a better solution would be to reduce drop rates of meta modules from ratting, which would making mining more vital. You could also create localized scarcity by adjusting spawn rates of particular rocks in particular sections of space. You wouldn't want it to be absolute, where only one region of space produces a certain resource (it's been tried before and allows for some pretty game-damaging economic warfare), but you could make it so that certain resources are most common in certain parts of space.
Axure Abbacus
Pentex Subsidiaries Corp
Pentex Subsidiaries Corp Alliance
#35 - 2017-07-03 02:24:56 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:
I can see the appeal of creating greater conflict over resources, but I don't think this really helps that very well. I think the market would adjust to this by increasing the price of minerals, resulting in people melting down ratting loot to meet the demand.

I think a better solution would be to reduce drop rates of meta modules from ratting, which would making mining more vital. You could also create localized scarcity by adjusting spawn rates of particular rocks in particular sections of space. You wouldn't want it to be absolute, where only one region of space produces a certain resource (it's been tried before and allows for some pretty game-damaging economic warfare), but you could make it so that certain resources are most common in certain parts of space.


Thank you for your interest in this thread.

The concept isn't meant to be a silver bullet to solve the mineral markets. There isn't that much wrong with mineral markets in general other than being a very boring section of EvE. Both of your assumptions would be correct. There would be a slight up tick in the value of minerals and an increased use of scrap metal reprocessing. This wouldn't be a bad thing by increasing the value of a miners time or removing unneeded modules from the market.

The reduction of meta modules drop rates has happened several years ago when it was more fun to mine level 4 missions and battleship rats than sit in a belt for days on end.

Mining is a necessary profession in eve, but it will not be quick, and you might not enjoy it.

It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid.

Previous page12