EVE General Discussion

But more risk means higher rewards for success!

Do players actually like taking these CCP austerity paycuts?

Just sayin'.

But if the risk is illusory, unlike real risk, it doesn't have any impact on their bottom line!

This is the opposite of sensible! This is like going in to work and demanding a pay cut every day of the week!

If supply can be reasonably accurately predicted to increase unchecked due to lack of risk, it's definitely not a static system.

So no, it's more like going into work every day and demanding a paycut because Value = Demand / Supply.

I'm unconvinced there's a case to be made that supply will do anything but increase in the foreseeable future, so this seems like pretty accurate modeling, to me.

I see. You're taking the "Eve's market will regulate itself no matter what CCP does to game mechanics" approach.

As miners are oh-so-fond of pointing out, however, people still mined when shuttles were available on sell orders from NPCs. Back then there was a literal ceiling on how much Tritanium could sell for, but miners continued gnawing away at it, reducing the margin to the point where CCP had to intervene by removing the shuttles.

So what precedent, exactly, do we have to show that miners will do anything whatsoever to act in their own best interest, let alone the best interests of Eve as a whole?

Also, as if your argument weren't full enough of holes already, bots aren't people.

[edit] One more thing: What about the new players trying to get into the decimated mining profession? Even if current players (miners) eventually move on to ruin another material's pricing, the damage is done. What incentive will there be, without risk, for new miners to get involved in mining? A pay cut every day? Floor-level pricing on everything you mine? That's a pretty bleak future for Eve you paint there. [/edit]

So you are all for creating a risk vs. reward system where any playstyle goes except the one miners have consistently refused to adapt against.

Fair enough. An opinion is an opinion.

It's a shame that CCP has to put efforts in to counter their own efforts, though, when players can do so just as effectively, if not moreso.

Regarding the depression of resources to the point where mining vessels are once again profitable to gank:

If the value of everything is lower, the margins will slide down proportionately. So no, your maths are in error and therefore your premise is flawed.

[edit] I just noticed something. The supply is not predicted to expand to infinity. It is predicted to expand infinitely. There is a difference, as you noted, based in finite math. The finite supply can approach infinity, however. Indeed, it is predicted to by the models of economic pressure.[/edit]

You didn't mention removing high-sec mining, so I could not know that was part of your "plan." Fair enough, though.

But assuming high-sec mining isn't removed; because CCP has gone to such lengths to preserve it against a lack of adaptability, demonstrating its importance, what risk would removing local add to NPC corp bots mining in an ice belt in high-security space huddled inside a smartbomb shield?

OK now how about if there were a legitimate risk of suicide gank?

Removing mining from high-sec is unnecessary. Lowering the threshold for successful mining in high-sec by some margin, however, is.

Good point on the bots, but I disagree that allowing suicide gankers the tools to control that problem is the best way to prevent botting. There are better and more precise tools to obtain the same result, without also allowing antisocials to abuse legitimate human miners. A well developed GM corps and data mining do well against botters. Plus I have never seen any intelligent estimates on the rates/output of bot mining. This, and that suicide ganking is equally effective against both bots and people, leads me to be suspicious of those claiming rightious indignation at bot mining. It seems to always be used as an excuse to be a **** to people. And then there is this mentality that all miners must be bots because I cant tell which of them are real, therefore I am justified in killing all of them.

On a side note, I didn't say I would remove highsec mining altogether, only that it wouldn't exist in its current form. In my universe it involves contracts, territory claims, leases, and finite resources.

I'm unsure that adding value to a profession could be construed as "abuse" in very many other games. Botters hated Hulkageddon. They love the new barges and exhumers. This has been indicated more than once. Also, AFK mining is no different than bot mining, so the indignation does not lay solely with the botters.

Remember that miners have failed to adapt to ganking by utilizing the simple tactic of mining aligned since it has existed. There is a reason for that. My personal opinion is that reason is that they are not at their keyboards enough to reliably stop a gank. CCP does not support AFK PVE. That's very clear.

They should be at their keyboards. Let gankers make sure they have incentive to do so, and add value to the profession at the same time.

This is more about the minimum threshold of safety provided by being able to withstand any profitable level of gank in highsec, so I'm not sure how nullsec miners, already safer with their adaptations, applies to what I was saying.