EVE General Discussion

…who are not developing, publishing, or running this game.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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).

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.

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.



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?



lol WTF are you smoking.

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.

Does Gun Mining based production EXIST ? Yes or no question.

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?

So more minerals will be leaving the market on average then they do today. Yes or No?

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?