These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 Mission runners just got completely screwed by CCP

First post First post
Author
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#641 - 2014-03-26 19:06:22 UTC
Enkill Eridos wrote:
This makes being self sustainable without getting into a mining ship that much harder. Which still affects those that run missions to be self sustainable, less so. My definition of self sustainable is being able to build what you want to fly and what you want to fit on that ship, without relying on the market. Which makes null sec easier to live in, the times I lived in null sec people made things but then sold those on the market in high sec, making most null sec markets a joke.
Anyone trying to be self sustaining relying on minerals from junk loot is doing it wrong. Even now it's the most peasant way of sustaining yourself and could be beaten by simply buying the minerals with mission isk or mining veldspar then trading it up.

Enkill Eridos wrote:
The quoted OP's Conspiracy Theory is plausible. Let me tell you why.

1.) CCP Devs have non CCP alts they play with, many of these alts are in null sec alliances. This was admitted to over the years by CCP employees.
Firstly, Citation needed.
SEcondly, that would imply that no CCP devs play in any other section of space, since a change doesn;t just need a single dev to think "this is a good idea"

Enkill Eridos wrote:
2.) Making ways to make ISK in high-sec would be strategically sound for the null sec alliances that want to keep the monopoly they have over null sec systems. I stopped playing eve in 2013 for personal reasons. Came back now looked at the sovergnty map and see that most of the really big alliances that were in null sec before, have gotten much bigger.

If there is any conspiracy involving null sec alliances trying to make high sec the least profitable place to live, thus getting more people to want to pick a side in their wars against each other. It would be to cripple how an alliance can make money in high sec and you cripple a new alliance to be able to rise up become just as big in numbers and take over. It protects their monopoly if it is economically unfeasible for an alliance that starts out in high sec to try and take a null sec system/constellation and be able to have the ships to hold it against what they can throw at it. Even if said constellation/system is "unclaimed". If there was a conspiracy involving the null sec alliances that would be the reason said conspiracy existed. The easiest way to do that is to start crippling one of the more lucrative ways to make money, or develop assets. The two ways to do that mission running and mining. You start nerfing the amount of minerals an alliance can reprocess or refine and you nerf the amount of ships they can make. Thus lessening the threats that could come from high sec.

As well as limiting the amount of money a null sec alliance with many members having high sec alts can make in high sec to help fund opposition of a particular monopoly system.
Pure tinfoil hattery. If anything this will make a high sec market for compressed ores, raising the isk transfer from null to high sec players. Overall mission income will only be reduced by 4%, since junk loot is only a small portion of the income from a mission. Considering a few months ago a lot of people abandoned most if not all of their loot as it was a pain to collect, then the MTUs were brought in which made loot collection trivial, it would seem to me that in the past few changes the overall trend is for mission income to increase, not decrease, even when factoring in the reprocess changes.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#642 - 2014-03-26 19:23:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Enkill Eridos wrote:
The Alliances currently controlling null sec
…who are not developing, publishing, or running this game.

Quote:
This makes being self sustainable without getting into a mining ship that much harder. Which still affects those that run missions to be self sustainable, less so.
Ok… so where's the intent to damage or bring devastation to mission runners? And more importantly, where is the damage and devastation? For a mission runner, this change is in lower single-figure percent in terms of effect, and only if they already run missions inefficiently. And if it makes the very narrow niche of “self-sufficiency without using mining ships” a bit harder, so what? The reason for mining to exist is to create minerals. That's all it is for. If that role gets strengthened and less intruded upon by unrelated activities, why is that a bad thing?

Quote:
The plan on making high sec mission running the least profitable thing you can do. (According to the OP of the original quote.)
Ok. Let me rephrase. What “plan”? What on earth is there to even suggest that something that silly exists? If it exists, what on earth is there to suggest that this change (which has pretty much zero impact on mission running compared the things it actually does affect) is part of this “plan”? Finally, if that is the plan, why does this change push people into running missions more efficiently and earning more money from it? If the plan is to make mission running less profitable, why aren't they making a change that makes mission-running less profitable instead of a change that fixes obvious mechanical errors and does very nasty things to the nullsec war machine? If that's the plan, why were missions buffed in numerous ways? Why is highsec being given new income sources? Why are (mainly) highsec professions given more definition and character that lets them compete better?

Quote:
The quoted OP's Conspiracy Theory is plausible. Let me tell you why.

1.) CCP Devs have non CCP alts they play with, many of these alts are in null sec alliances. This was admitted to over the years by CCP employees.
2.) Making ways to make ISK in high-sec would be strategically sound for the null sec alliances that want to keep the monopoly they have over null sec systems.
Neither of these make it plausible that there is a plan to hurt either highsec or mission-running. Not only does this change hurt null more than it does highsec; the highsec income sources are pretty much untouched — especially the high-end ones that you'd need to build up a strategic reserve. Furthermore, it does not match the fact that null has gotten large-scale income nerf after large-scale income nerf. The OP's conspiracy theory is like all conspiracy theories: it is only plausible if you completely reject any and all reality and instead cherry-pick bits and pieces that have no connection with each other, inventing and ignoring facts where needed.

Oh, and the notion that they're trying to “limit the threat of highsec” is nonsensical because highsec cannot threaten null. It's mechanically impossible. There is no reason to try to limit it. To threaten null, you have to start in lowsec at least, and preferably in NPC null. There's a reason why everyone involved in nullsec warfare wants those kinds of limitations removed, and that is to allow more threats to evolve.

Again, the conspiracy relies on ignoring what is actually going on and lying through your teeth to cover up the gaps in reality that are required for the theory to remain even remotely coherent.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#643 - 2014-03-27 00:34:51 UTC
Abla Tive wrote:
By nerfing my reprocessing gains, CCP is driving me towards a very restricted type of "optimal" mission grinding where things like ISK / hour are important.

I suspect that this will make the game less enjoyable for me.

When the high sec POCO's came out, I could not be arsed enough to determine if the alliance that owned the POCOs in my local space were deserving of my tax money, so I stopped doing PI. (And I was certainly not going to fund undeserving people, giving taxes to NPCs and giving taxes to PCs are completely different things in my books).

That made the game narrower for me.

Now, I am being boxed in my mission and industrial play style and I fear for my enjoyment.

you're making the game narrower for you
Cassandra Banes
Absolute Order
Absolute Honor
#644 - 2014-03-27 00:41:35 UTC
Enkill Eridos wrote:
Cassandra Banes wrote:
I can see that they're trying to put more cash in the hands of producers (construction / mining) than mission runners (who simply blow things up, loot (mabey) rinse and repeat).

I think it's more of a promotion of a concept than a slap in the face of mission runners, I think there's some people taking it a bit more personally than i believe they should.

I do agree that the reduction is probably more than is required (perhaps some more balancing is needed at CCP's end) but in saying that, the developers can speculate on a change and put forward their best projections, but until it hits the servers and they're given some time to see how it affects things they're not going to really know.

Neither are any of us really, all we can do is speculate.

I'm not for one way or the other, I'm just going to find it interesting seeing what does actually happen post deployment and see if I can make isk out of it.

I hope you all do to :)


I would rather get materials to build the ships I want from running missions than mining. Mission Runners that simply blow things up, we do more than just sit in front of rocks waiting for them to blow up. Your statement which basically says Mission Runners are not producers I am kind of offended by. I run missions for the loot which I reprocess all of it to make ammo, ships, and other things. Of course with the drones nerf, I used to be able to make bs and below. Now all that is feasible for me to make is frigates and rigs. Trys to put more cash in the hands of producers my eye. This kind of thing forces producers to be construction/miner. As opposed to mission runner/construction, saying that producers can only be contruction/miners. Is trying to force other people to play as you do. There are many ways to get the minerals to make things, with each iteration of EVE Online that statement becomes less and less true.

I like to think outside of the box, I like being able to build things without having to shoot at rocks at all. You play your way I play mine. But please do not assume that everyone that does a thing (in this case mission running/ratting) all does a thing for the same reasons.


I didn't say what I said to be offensive, and you are right, people do play different ways. So if I have given offense I do apologise, I like to run missions but for different reasons, I don't manufacture ships or weapons, I produce minerals for trade (any way i can) so perhaps my view is skewed more toward my own play style as you say.

The point was trying to make is that this change affects everyone regardless of our play styles( You have less materials to work with and I have less materials for trade). One of the issues with any and all MMO's seems to be that "Majority Rules" which often makes for pain in the ass decisions being made by developers who are trying to make "everyone" happy.

The thing that does strike me however is, they've taken with one hand, but are they giving anything back with the other?



ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#645 - 2014-03-27 01:37:06 UTC
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them.

The rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Lady Katherine Devonshire
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
#646 - 2014-03-27 05:47:00 UTC
Actually, after reading the developer notes, I would say that OP has it backward. I say this patch is, as unbelievable as it sounds, an attack on the null-sec blocks.

Consider:

1) Recently they had a historic landmark battle that destroyed a new record number of super-capital class ships. These ship will now have to be replaced, which in turn means that the null-sec blocks are experiencing a massive spike in their mineral import needs.

2) When it comes to mining minerals, null-sec blocks are known to only employ one of two attitudes. The former being that it is best done by bot fleets, but this can apparently be completely disrupted by something called a "cloaky neut." The second being that it is easier for them to just exploit their high income spawns for ISK and then buy the required minerals in high security space (read: Jita) and then import them back home.

3) The preferred method for importing minerals from Jita was not to actually buy or move the minerals themselves, but instead to exploit game mechanics by purchasing large numbers of various tech one modules, importing those, and reprocessing them at a high skill level. Apparently a finished module takes up far less space than the minerals required to make it, and with a high enough skill level said modules could be reprocessed at either 100% efficiency or a number so close to it as to make no difference.

Thus finished goods were being used an alternative form of ore compression via current reprocessing rules.

4) You may notice that Rorqual ore compression rules are also being handled in the same patch. Coincidence?

Conclusion: Nerfing reprocessing is actually meant to force the null-sec blocks to either waste more money trying to hoover up all of the minerals out of the high-sec block (which, ironically, they claim serves no real purpose) or force them to do the unthinkable and actually spend some time in mining barges themselves.

As far as high-sec is concerned, overall this will actually mean more ISK coming in because the null-sec blocks (who have all the ISK) will be forced to spend more to buy more things from you in order to get the same amount of minerals. Not to mention the overall spike in mineral prices for exporting to the null-sec blocks whom are, obviously, high-sec's biggest customers (not that they would ever admit to this, of course).
Mario Putzo
#647 - 2014-03-27 06:09:03 UTC
Lady Katherine Devonshire wrote:
Actually, after reading the developer notes, I would say that OP has it backward. I say this patch is, as unbelievable as it sounds, an attack on the null-sec blocks.

Consider:

1) Recently they had a historic landmark battle that destroyed a new record number of super-capital class ships. These ship will now have to be replaced, which in turn means that the null-sec blocks are experiencing a massive spike in their mineral import needs.

2) When it comes to mining minerals, null-sec blocks are known to only employ one of two attitudes. The former being that it is best done by bot fleets, but this can apparently be completely disrupted by something called a "cloaky neut." The second being that it is easier for them to just exploit their high income spawns for ISK and then buy the required minerals in high security space (read: Jita) and then import them back home.

3) The preferred method for importing minerals from Jita was not to actually buy or move the minerals themselves, but instead to exploit game mechanics by purchasing large numbers of various tech one modules, importing those, and reprocessing them at a high skill level. Apparently a finished module takes up far less space than the minerals required to make it, and with a high enough skill level said modules could be reprocessed at either 100% efficiency or a number so close to it as to make no difference.

Thus finished goods were being used an alternative form of ore compression via current reprocessing rules.

4) You may notice that Rorqual ore compression rules are also being handled in the same patch. Coincidence?

Conclusion: Nerfing reprocessing is actually meant to force the null-sec blocks to either waste more money trying to hoover up all of the minerals out of the high-sec block (which, ironically, they claim serves no real purpose) or force them to do the unthinkable and actually spend some time in mining barges themselves.

As far as high-sec is concerned, overall this will actually mean more ISK coming in because the null-sec blocks (who have all the ISK) will be forced to spend more to buy more things from you in order to get the same amount of minerals. Not to mention the overall spike in mineral prices for exporting to the null-sec blocks whom are, obviously, high-sec's biggest customers (not that they would ever admit to this, of course).


Slow Clap someone else gets it thank the lord.

More miners, or less production to maintain the status quo. Without one or the other there will be a price spike on minerals...thus changing the status quo.

This is a net nerf to everyone not just HS refining. So abloo blooo blooo CCP hates us all.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#648 - 2014-03-27 08:00:32 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Slow Clap someone else gets it thank the lord.

More miners, or less production to maintain the status quo. Without one or the other there will be a price spike on minerals...thus changing the status quo.

This is a net nerf to everyone not just HS refining. So abloo blooo blooo CCP hates us all.
Sigh...

The loss of those T1 modules will be replaced with ore compression, which is the same damn thing. They were never really part of the "production" potion, they were just compressing the minerals which were later decompressed. Production will not go down.

Hilariously, if production did go down or mining did go up, there would not be a spike in minerals, there would be a drop. I think it's pretty clear from your method of measuring value that your knowledge of the market is limited. The part of the change you are talking about here just means that value will be transferred to compressed or instead of a handful of random T1 modules. Is it possible that production will decrease? Sure it is, but it's just as viable that production will increase, since moving minerals about will be considerably easier now. Industry will actually be possible in wormholes, where previously the cap for reprocessing and refining meant you had to ship in uncompressed minerals to manufacture anything. In what possible way is giving their mining value and making them able to refine at a competitive rate a net nerf?

Don't worry about answering, I can already tell you your response will be condescending, illegible and wrong.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#649 - 2014-03-27 08:06:39 UTC
Surely if reprocessing is nerfed everywhere but in mobile arrays then those who choose to use them wont get a net nerf as they arent being nerfed at all?

Some people so use them for various reasons.

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann

Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#650 - 2014-03-27 13:05:28 UTC
Enkill Eridos wrote:
This makes being self sustainable without getting into a mining ship that much harder. Which still affects those that run missions to be self sustainable, less so.


Being self-sustainable has never been an important game design goal, ESPECIALLY in hisec, where there is zero reason to be self sustainable. In null, its never been possible to be self sustainable, at least not if you like t2 things. If you think building ship hulls and ammo from loot makes you self sustainable, well, then you can still do that.

Quote:
The plan on making high sec mission running the least profitable thing you can do. (According to the OP of the original quote.) Blitzing missions leads to more lp which would tank the lp market, which is already tanking because incursions gets you lp that you can transfer anywhere.


Except there are steep penalties for transfering LP to a high-value LP corporation. Incursions aren't a new thing either. Which LP market specifically is tanking?

Quote:

Also it would limit high sec players from being able to resist the big alliances if they ever decided to come to high sec enmasse and start ganking everybody. If you can't afford to keep buying ships and fight back, they will have no reason to stop.


lol WTF are you smoking.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.

Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#651 - 2014-03-27 13:11:39 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:

Slow Clap someone else gets it thank the lord.

More miners, or less production to maintain the status quo. Without one or the other there will be a price spike on minerals...thus changing the status quo.

This is a net nerf to everyone not just HS refining. So abloo blooo blooo CCP hates us all.


CCP hates us because they made miners more valuable? wtf? Nullsec blocks are going to buy compressed ore instead of 425mm railguns. If they weren't mining before they certainly won't have to do so now. Production will meet demand, and mining will pick up to meet the demand for materials. All motivated by either spiking or gradually shifting prices, depending on speculation, and occuring over a period of months. I don't know why you think this such a terrible thing.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.

Mario Putzo
#652 - 2014-03-27 13:56:11 UTC
Batelle wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:

Slow Clap someone else gets it thank the lord.

More miners, or less production to maintain the status quo. Without one or the other there will be a price spike on minerals...thus changing the status quo.

This is a net nerf to everyone not just HS refining. So abloo blooo blooo CCP hates us all.


CCP hates us because they made miners more valuable? wtf? Nullsec blocks are going to buy compressed ore instead of 425mm railguns. If they weren't mining before they certainly won't have to do so now. Production will meet demand, and mining will pick up to meet the demand for materials. All motivated by either spiking or gradually shifting prices, depending on speculation, and occuring over a period of months. I don't know why you think this such a terrible thing.


You keep saying this like it changes anything related to production and available market minerals. The math doesn't support you position.

Oh right I forgot, Gun mining producers don't exist.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#653 - 2014-03-27 15:09:27 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
You keep saying this like it changes anything related to production and available market minerals. The math doesn't support you position.

Oh right I forgot, Gun mining producers don't exist.
As a relevantly sized market, they don't. And you've demonstrated your math, needless to say your math and the math that actually portrays the situation are strikingly different. If you aren't willing to actually understand basic game mechanics, even when they are explained to you, you'll continue to wrongly assume people are making terrible points, just like you'll continue to assume that your choice to grind up junk to sustain yourself is the best one available.

See where the problem lies here? I'll be clear: it's not the changes, it's your lack of understanding and bad choices.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Mario Putzo
#654 - 2014-03-27 15:23:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Lucas Kell wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
You keep saying this like it changes anything related to production and available market minerals. The math doesn't support you position.

Oh right I forgot, Gun mining producers don't exist.
As a relevantly sized market, they don't. And you've demonstrated your math, needless to say your math and the math that actually portrays the situation are strikingly different. If you aren't willing to actually understand basic game mechanics, even when they are explained to you, you'll continue to wrongly assume people are making terrible points, just like you'll continue to assume that your choice to grind up junk to sustain yourself is the best one available.

See where the problem lies here? I'll be clear: it's not the changes, it's your lack of understanding and bad choices.


Does Gun Mining based production EXIST ? Yes or no question.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#655 - 2014-03-27 15:28:40 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Does Gun Mining based production EXIST or does it NOT exist?
It's does, as a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny minority of producers who don't realise that they've made the worst possible choice. It's like how cruiser miners still exist. How does them getting nerfed equate to "a net nerf to everyone"?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Mario Putzo
#656 - 2014-03-27 15:31:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Lucas Kell wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
Does Gun Mining based production EXIST or does it NOT exist?
It's does


With the 45% reduction to gun mining, in order to maintain their CURRENT production rate, those gun miners will now have to buy off the market or mine their own minerals. Yes or No?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#657 - 2014-03-27 15:33:52 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
Does Gun Mining based production EXIST or does it NOT exist?
It's does, as a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny minority of producers who don't realise that they've made the worst possible choice. It's like how cruiser miners still exist. How does them getting nerfed equate to "a net nerf to everyone"?


With the 45% reduction to gun mining, in order to maintain their CURRENT production rate, those gun miners will now have to buy off the market or mine their own minerals. Yes or No?
Sigh... yes. But since 45% of "next to nothing" is still not a market impacting volume your point is?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Mario Putzo
#658 - 2014-03-27 15:34:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Lucas Kell wrote:

Sigh... yes.


So more minerals will be leaving the market on average then they do today. Yes or No?
Darth Bladius
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#659 - 2014-03-27 15:35:21 UTC
Can someone explain what is going on, please?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#660 - 2014-03-27 15:36:21 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
With the 45% reduction to gun mining, in order to maintain their CURRENT production rate, those gun miners will now have to buy off the market or mine their own minerals. Yes or No?
Sigh... yes.
So more minerals will be leaving the market on average then they do today. Yes or No?[/quote]In theory, yes, but again not by a noticeable amount. Are you going to be getting to your point any time soon?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.