These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Specific Examples of Where Risk Should Be Inserted Successfully Into High-sec

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#241 - 2012-10-09 18:37:58 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
I'm still waiting for an actual justification for the introduction of risk for hi-sec miners from the "would love nothing more than to gank the miners for lolz" crowd in this topic.

If they AFK mine enough... they will have 0 risk with 0 profit/reward to match..... I don't see the issue here....

Well when they were getting ganked miners also enjoyed the best profits they have ever seen which is a rather nice thing. It also removed a great deal of bots which is also great for everyone.

But risk for miners doesnt have to be only from pvp.


I'm touched.

In a topic hoping to come up with solid ideas to add risk to and ruin a profession many of the participants in here shun or wouldn't be caught dead doing anyway... always demanding that hi-sec mining profits get nerfed in accordance with its lack of risk... we have gems who care about the profit of said profession.

/sarcasm.

And all the bots was actually grand... more minerals on the supply side of the market, lower prices... cheaper ships, cheaper pew pew... so again.... I'm not seeing the bright side of changing that....

I'm not sure it would be conducive to your cause to continue along this line of reasoning.

You don't want miners to be directly associated with actually supporting botting, do you? Besides, you must realize the havoc bots wreak on the economy.

Value = Demand / Supply. As supply goes up, value goes down. Bots relentlessly contribute to supply in a way designed specifically to mininimize demand.

Give that some thought, please.


My views are my own. Miners can speak for themselves if they are so inclined. Fools would take one opinion and try to extrapolate it to a population.

I'm not going to argue the de-merrits of bots. Why not? From a price perspective, I fully support the proliferation of minerals on the market by any and all means necessary. From a profit perspective, I object wholeheartedly to my previous statement. Then again, I'm a profiteering ho. So I will support both the reduction of costs of goods and the maximization of profit in the same breath.

Therefore I think you need to differentiate between your compulsion to remove the bot from mining that will in itself, to some extent, balance out your value = demand / supply equation by basing the equation on true player capacity instead of automated capacity with actual people supplimenting...... from your compulsion to ruin the mining game in the hope that the perceived solutions of a predominantly pro-ganking clique will make everyone happy.

If your entire justification for this whole debate is that bots devalue mining... then clearly adding risks will not solve the problem (As it didn't in the past when risk was abundant... in fact, I recall botting at its worst when you had soo much risk to play with in hi-sec, that you could agress somebody and profit from the gank or even prevent concord from getting sum back just for getting looked at the wrong way or minding their own business).

How bots are removed from Eve without touching risk, is a different animal all together... one I think this topic doesn't cover at all.

All well and good. However, your arguments cannot be resolved logically or mathematically. Either you want low prices, or you want high prices.

Either you want successful miners to earn peanuts, or you want successful miners to earn reasonable income.

There really isn't a middle of the road here.

Also, I have it on good authority that bot authors hated Hulkageddon. Which is interesting, considering prices earned at market by successful miners during Hulkageddon were among the highest ever earned in Eve.

Thanks for your replies.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#242 - 2012-10-09 18:55:24 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:

All well and good. However, your arguments cannot be resolved logically or mathematically. Either you want low prices, or you want high prices.

Either you want successful miners to earn peanuts, or you want successful miners to earn reasonable income.

There really isn't a middle of the road here.

Also, I have it on good authority that bot authors hated Hulkageddon. Which is interesting, considering prices earned at market by successful miners during Hulkageddon were among the highest ever earned in Eve.

Thanks for your replies.


Granted, I made awesome isk during hulkageddons. Loved the profits, hated the faggotry.

But this is Eve. If you can't cut costs via industrial scale supply and maximize profits by adding additional value at the same time, given Eve's complexities, then your doing it wrong.

I want miners to do either, or both as their local environments and personal capacities will allow them to.

Thanks for the engagement ;)

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#243 - 2012-10-09 20:01:08 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Either you want successful miners to earn peanuts, or you want successful miners to earn reasonable income.


I don't mine to sell those materials. I mine because it's faster way to get materials than reprocessing loot. Especially when I have to sort that loot first.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#244 - 2012-10-09 21:12:40 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Either you want successful miners to earn peanuts, or you want successful miners to earn reasonable income.


I don't mine to sell those materials. I mine because it's faster way to get materials than reprocessing loot. Especially when I have to sort that loot first.


It's free because you mined it yourself right?

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#245 - 2012-10-09 21:17:10 UTC
Andski wrote:
It's free because you mined it yourself right?


He quite clearly stated that the minerals he mined himself cost less than the minerals obtained through reprocessing loot. So not free, just lower cost in terms of ergs.

You can go hide under your bridge again, billy goat gruff Lol

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#246 - 2012-10-09 21:45:44 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
All well and good. However, your arguments cannot be resolved logically or mathematically. Either you want low prices, or you want high prices.

Either you want successful miners to earn peanuts, or you want successful miners to earn reasonable income.

There really isn't a middle of the road here.

Also, I have it on good authority that bot authors hated Hulkageddon. Which is interesting, considering prices earned at market by successful miners during Hulkageddon were among the highest ever earned in Eve.

Thanks for your replies.

Darth

There is no Hulkageddon.
Gankers have had their heads pulled in.
Bots are apparently rampant again.

Mineral prices are high and look to stay that way for the forseeable future.

Where are you (repeatedly) going with this?

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#247 - 2012-10-09 21:47:10 UTC
Crispin McTarmac wrote:
Remember loss of your ship or your life is not the only risk which exists. Failed investment is currently the most important risk in highsec, and it can be extended to any activity simply by giving that activity a (non-trivial) cost.


This is a good idea, add non-trivial costs to highsec mining and highsec mission running. Those two activities have basically no risk, amazing reward and this is a good way to do it without causing the pubbie masses to howl in anger.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#248 - 2012-10-09 21:53:14 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
Risks to add:

-Fix the EHP balance between exhumers to make the Skiff NOT pointless.

-Fix aggression in highsec so you cannot hide in an npc corp from aggression. Give people 1 year in an un-wardecable npc corp (the academy corps) then after that time should they decide to remain in an npc-corp, return from a player corp to an npc corp or somehow end up in an npc corp transfer them to their factions npc corp that is involved in FW. Npc corp protection would be returned for 1 year upon purchase of a new character because the fee and effort involved in buying/selling characters can be called a non-trivial cost.

-Make missions much more risky and favorable to pvp fits.

-Remove at least half of the aggression nerfs Herr Wilikus lists somewhere that if you care to reply in dispute to this post you can find yourself.

-A change of stance from "suicide ganking should not be profitable" to "suicide ganking smart people should not be profitable."

-Fix wardecs ~again~.

-Revise crimewatch2 so it is not a nerf to ganking.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#249 - 2012-10-09 22:24:22 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:

Can you prove "tanked Hulk can't be destroyed in hisec" is not true?


It can neither be proven, nor disproven.

As far as I am aware CCP are the only people that have full 100% access to all killmails.
And they don't seem to be in any hurry to make all that information public.

Eve-kill, battleclinic & griefwatch all operate on an opt-in basis, and as not everyone opts in they do not have 100% of the information.

All you can say with any certainty is that either scenario is statistically probable, which means practically nothing in the real world.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#250 - 2012-10-09 22:36:53 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
-Fix aggression in highsec so you cannot hide in an npc corp from aggression. Give people 1 year in an un-wardecable npc corp (the academy corps) then after that time should they decide to remain in an npc-corp, return from a player corp to an npc corp or somehow end up in an npc corp transfer them to their factions npc corp that is involved in FW. Npc corp protection would be returned for 1 year upon purchase of a new character because the fee and effort involved in buying/selling characters can be called a non-trivial cost.

That penalizes some more than others and only creates more alts with handoffs to still accomplish the same things they do today when unfriendly empire borders need be crossed.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#251 - 2012-10-09 22:37:52 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

That penalizes some more than others and only creates more alts with handoffs to still accomplish the same things they do today when unfriendly empire borders need be crossed.


How?

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#252 - 2012-10-09 22:38:04 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
RAGE QU1T wrote:
Gogela wrote:
Get the NPC money out of empire. Level 3 and 4 missions all move to low and null, only veldspar available in .5+ systems, etc...

Will solve *most* problems.


The game would die a horrible death, Not all players want to live in null


That is one of the core problems of the game & things will only get worse if more people aren't encouraged out of highsec.


Saying it does not make it true.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#253 - 2012-10-09 22:40:56 UTC
Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
RAGE QU1T wrote:
Gogela wrote:
Get the NPC money out of empire. Level 3 and 4 missions all move to low and null, only veldspar available in .5+ systems, etc...

Will solve *most* problems.


The game would die a horrible death, Not all players want to live in null


That is one of the core problems of the game & things will only get worse if more people aren't encouraged out of highsec.


Saying it does not make it true.


npc alts dont count try again

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#254 - 2012-10-09 22:44:14 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

That penalizes some more than others and only creates more alts with handoffs to still accomplish the same things they do today when unfriendly empire borders need be crossed.


How?

Amarr mission runner who never goes to Gallente space doesn't really care if they are placed in an FW corp as all they do is sit in Amarr HS anyways and still has access to Jita as the 2 factions are allies. This is especially true if it's a character that is KOS in opposing faction space anyways. As far as freighter pilots, it may be a bit more of a hassle. 3 pilots could easily do it though. 1 for each pair of empires with 1 handoff character in a 1 man corp. Not the simplest of solutions, but easily doable.
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#255 - 2012-10-09 22:44:44 UTC
Ginger Barbarella wrote:
Revamp the difficulty of rats in high-sec belts. Seeing frigates in .5 and then battleships in .4 and lower is just silly. Have progressively harder rats the further down in high sec you go. Battleships & BCs in .5, BCs in .6, cruisers and BCs in .7, and so on. Good lootz, good salvage.

That might also make the anti-mining losers happier, too... but naw, that means they'll probably have to start fighting things that shoot back, easy as they are.


So newbies should only be in 1.0 systems then ??

Because with your advocted change to belts rats, they would get butt f***ed (without lube), and then most likely uninstall the game permanantly.
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#256 - 2012-10-09 22:48:26 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Gogela wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:

It's hilarious because they get what they want, so clearly CCP thinks they're pretty important. Shocked

Something needs to be done. I blame myself. When the new wardec mechanic hit I was going to go after a bunch of soft empire corps just to ruin them, but ended up going after a hard target which turned out to be fruitless. Then work.. then a market project... always some excuse. When my market stuff wraps about winter-expansion time I'm going into the empire sand-castle kicking business. To the NPC corps with you all.

Let me know if you need help. That's the way I'll be riding out the game myself right up to the point they ban me for "griefing" or whatever other label they put on their no-longer favored features.


So many tears from the supposed tough guys. Roll
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#257 - 2012-10-09 22:56:28 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

That penalizes some more than others and only creates more alts with handoffs to still accomplish the same things they do today when unfriendly empire borders need be crossed.


How?

Amarr mission runner who never goes to Gallente space doesn't really care if they are placed in an FW corp as all they do is sit in Amarr HS anyways and still has access to Jita as the 2 factions are allies. This is especially true if it's a character that is KOS in opposing faction space anyways. As far as freighter pilots, it may be a bit more of a hassle. 3 pilots could easily do it though. 1 for each pair of empires with 1 handoff character in a 1 man corp. Not the simplest of solutions, but easily doable.


Yeah that's not penalizing some more than others anymore than people being too apathetic to vote for CSM penalizes them. It provides new players 1 year to figure out the game. It removes consequence free npc corps and gives players an incentive to explore different player corps or create their own. CCP has already shown and stated that players who get involved in player corps tend to enjoy EVE more than those who remain in npc corps so this is a win all around. The trade hub, I can agree with slightly; this could prompt minmatar/gallente to make their own jita and have two competing highsec trade hubs which would be a good thing.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#258 - 2012-10-09 22:59:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Kitty Bear wrote:
Ginger Barbarella wrote:
Revamp the difficulty of rats in high-sec belts. Seeing frigates in .5 and then battleships in .4 and lower is just silly. Have progressively harder rats the further down in high sec you go. Battleships & BCs in .5, BCs in .6, cruisers and BCs in .7, and so on. Good lootz, good salvage.

That might also make the anti-mining losers happier, too... but naw, that means they'll probably have to start fighting things that shoot back, easy as they are.


So newbies should only be in 1.0 systems then ??

Because with your advocted change to belts rats, they would get butt f***ed (without lube), and then most likely uninstall the game permanantly.

Most things set up to 'protect newbies' like CONCORD and NPC corps ultimately hurt new players more then anybody because it's the experienced players who know the ins and outs of exploiting aggro mechanics and dec shields far better then they do. The experienced highseccer will have his pimpboat ratting away happily at BS beltrats that used to belong in low/null while the newbie gets torn up, in this case.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#259 - 2012-10-09 23:00:35 UTC
Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:

So many tears from the supposed tough guys. Roll



~~~~npc alt tough guyBig smileSmileSadShockedWhat?CoolLolXPOopsCryEvilTwistedRollBlinkAttentionQuestionIdeaArrowStraightPirateUghBear~~~~~~

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#260 - 2012-10-09 23:03:05 UTC
Kitty Bear wrote:

Can you prove "tanked Hulk can't be profitably destroyed in hisec" is not true?


I fixed this, because the point has always been about profit.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.