These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Science & Industry

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

High end mineral crisis

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#161 - 2014-12-04 16:11:28 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
e followed by Spod/Arkonor.

It's pretty clear that CCP doesn't understand that this imbalance is an actual issue stemming from ore anomalies, despite repetitive attempts to have them fix it.



Highlighted the exact reason mineral prices are the way they are. Could be easily fixed with a change in the composition of null anomalies. Especially in the drone regions, for even a relatively small mining corp, it is impossible to get all the mexallon you desire.

Some players are all too eager to claim that you should a) mine out the belts (I've scanned them, and run the numbers, this would not have ANY noticable impact, not to mention drone belts have tiny amounts of mex), b) reprocess modules (Drone rats dont drop modules for the most part, again, not a solution) or c) go mine in highsec for mex (Your area is just fine, as long as you go elsewhere. Nice logic...)

We don't need perfect ratios, but as it is the nullsec anom ore ratios are a an absolute insult to the credibility of CCP's intelligence.
Lady Zarrina
New Eden Browncoats
#162 - 2014-12-04 17:41:50 UTC
The best solution to low prices is low prices. Once people stop mining these ores the prices will increase.

EVE: All about Flying Frisky and Making Iskie
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#163 - 2014-12-04 19:17:48 UTC
Lady Zarrina wrote:
The best solution to low prices is low prices. Once people stop mining these ores the prices will increase.


Thank you for contributing to the thread while not comprehending any other post therein.


Mineral supply still is not fixed in null, starting to tally the months that it takes after Greyscale actually acknowledged that it needed to be looked at.
Hippinse
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#164 - 2014-12-04 23:11:11 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
Lady Zarrina wrote:
The best solution to low prices is low prices. Once people stop mining these ores the prices will increase.


Thank you for contributing to the thread while not comprehending any other post therein.


Mineral supply still is not fixed in null, starting to tally the months that it takes after Greyscale actually acknowledged that it needed to be looked at.


I guess you're technically right in refuting Lady Zarrina's statement that once people stop mining these ores the prices will increase. Most of your posts make the same claim: You [royal "you"] WILL NOT change your actions. You don't like how the numbers work out doing things in the 'preferred' way, and you WILL NOT adapt. CCP MUST change the code.

I comprehend what you are saying.

I'm just missing the part where your choice trumps everyone else's game experience? When I run the risk/reward assessment about parking my hulk in a belt in highsec, I have to live with the costs of either choice. (loss of ship -vs- lower yield) Why do you feel you get to keep your hulks out of belts entirely and yet still get the yields you want?
Rthor
Smugglers Inc.
#165 - 2014-12-05 05:15:46 UTC
The issue is the definition of rarity.

In Eve rarity means that if some mineral is 1/4 more "rare" this is offset by you needing only 1/4 of this "rare" mineral.

If you want to be consistent require 7 million megacyte to build a ship that requires 7 million tritanium. Then megacyte will indeed be rare.

Make ships require 1 milion tritanium, 1 million pyerity, 1 million mex, etc. 1 million megacyte. Then rare will be rare.

As it is rarity is offset by lower need, hence nothing is really needed more than anything else. So you can mine whatever you want regardless of its "rarity."
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#166 - 2014-12-05 19:53:26 UTC
Hippinse wrote:
I'm just missing the part where your choice trumps everyone else's game experience? When I run the risk/reward assessment about parking my hulk in a belt in highsec, I have to live with the costs of either choice. (loss of ship -vs- lower yield) Why do you feel you get to keep your hulks out of belts entirely and yet still get the yields you want?


Mr Omniblivion wrote:

I don't know any other way to explain this to you, but mining in actual belts in nullsec will never happen except in order to level up the industry level, or unless CCP makes a significant change in null belts/anoms.

Even cherry picking static belts, anyone using more than one miner could net more low end minerals in an anom than at a static belt because of the significant time lost micromanaging lasers and moving through the belt. The problem still arises that there is significantly more supply of high end ore throughout null than can be possibly used, reflected in the price of high end minerals and excess stockpiles that people are just sitting on waiting for a change to happen.

CCP could simply lower the volume/size of the high end rocks in null, and that would go a long way towards fixing the imbalance. They really don't need to add anything, just make high ends more scarce so that belts can be cycled more frequently, thus netting overall more lows and less high ends.


The point is not the refusal to go into the belts. The point is that if you look at the numbers, going to the belt in null is always a significant net loss, especially if you have multiple miners. Until a major change is made by CCP, it will always be more efficient to strip out null anomalies and import missing minerals from high sec (or just not mine at all, since mining income is still abysmally low).

Null belts are still littered with high end ores, just like anomalies. So cherry picking the low end ores out of null belts still requires a ton of movement, switching rocks, etc. All of which takes time, which cuts your actual income down to a pittance per hour.

If the goal of CCP is to encourage localized nullsec production further, then they will need to make a change to null anomalies to provide some sort of better balance to the mineral supply in null.
Hippinse
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#167 - 2014-12-05 20:38:17 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
Hippinse wrote:
I'm just missing the part where your choice trumps everyone else's game experience? When I run the risk/reward assessment about parking my hulk in a belt in highsec, I have to live with the costs of either choice. (loss of ship -vs- lower yield) Why do you feel you get to keep your hulks out of belts entirely and yet still get the yields you want?


Mr Omniblivion wrote:

I don't know any other way to explain this to you, but mining in actual belts in nullsec will never happen except in order to level up the industry level, or unless CCP makes a significant change in null belts/anoms.

Even cherry picking static belts, anyone using more than one miner could net more low end minerals in an anom than at a static belt because of the significant time lost micromanaging lasers and moving through the belt. The problem still arises that there is significantly more supply of high end ore throughout null than can be possibly used, reflected in the price of high end minerals and excess stockpiles that people are just sitting on waiting for a change to happen.

CCP could simply lower the volume/size of the high end rocks in null, and that would go a long way towards fixing the imbalance. They really don't need to add anything, just make high ends more scarce so that belts can be cycled more frequently, thus netting overall more lows and less high ends.


The point is not the refusal to go into the belts. The point is that if you look at the numbers, going to the belt in null is always a significant net loss, especially if you have multiple miners. Until a major change is made by CCP, it will always be more efficient to strip out null anomalies and import missing minerals from high sec (or just not mine at all, since mining income is still abysmally low).

Null belts are still littered with high end ores, just like anomalies. So cherry picking the low end ores out of null belts still requires a ton of movement, switching rocks, etc. All of which takes time, which cuts your actual income down to a pittance per hour.

If the goal of CCP is to encourage localized nullsec production further, then they will need to make a change to null anomalies to provide some sort of better balance to the mineral supply in null.


I was thinking about this last night after i made that post and I realized that I was addressing the wrong issue. You correctly (and patiently; thank you) pointed out my mistake. However, I still don't fully agree with the terminology you're using to describe this situation.

When you say, "The point is not the refusal to go into the belts.", what you mean is "The point is not the refusal to go into the belts for purposes of avoiding risk." Because.... ya know... you're still refusing to go into the belts. You're just doing that because it's easier and more efficient to use the anomalies. (Larger rocks for the hulks to chew on, so less movement, etc.) The anomalies are *so* much better than the belts that they've rendered the belts unusable.

The only downside to using the anomalies and completely ignoring the belts is that the higher-end minerals are over-harvested, and null has no discipline to avoid destroying the market. (Which isn't an unrealistic situation.)

All of this makes sense. But this is Eve, and 'everything is pvp'. You're in-effect waging war against non-null miners not by shooting them, but by asking CCP to increase your effectiveness which will hurt their effectiveness. (ie, what you're asking for will have an impact in the market place beyond JUST the high-end minerals.) Also, what you're asking to change would remove the *only* downside to null anomaly mining, would it not? Isn't that similar to a highsec miner asking to have the hulk receive a skiff's tank & drone bonus? (all of the benefits, none of the drawbacks)

One last point: if null becomes too 'self sufficient', doesn't that remove the potential for content/conflict by removing supply lines?
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#168 - 2014-12-05 21:56:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Omniblivion
Hippinse wrote:

When you say, "The point is not the refusal to go into the belts.", what you mean is "The point is not the refusal to go into the belts for purposes of avoiding risk." Because.... ya know... you're still refusing to go into the belts. You're just doing that because it's easier and more efficient to use the anomalies. (Larger rocks for the hulks to chew on, so less movement, etc.) The anomalies are *so* much better than the belts that they've rendered the belts unusable.

The only downside to using the anomalies and completely ignoring the belts is that the higher-end minerals are over-harvested, and null has no discipline to avoid destroying the market. (Which isn't an unrealistic situation.)

All of this makes sense. But this is Eve, and 'everything is pvp'. You're in-effect waging war against non-null miners not by shooting them, but by asking CCP to increase your effectiveness which will hurt their effectiveness. (ie, what you're asking for will have an impact in the market place beyond JUST the high-end minerals.) Also, what you're asking to change would remove the *only* downside to null anomaly mining, would it not? Isn't that similar to a highsec miner asking to have the hulk receive a skiff's tank & drone bonus? (all of the benefits, none of the drawbacks)

One last point: if null becomes too 'self sufficient', doesn't that remove the potential for content/conflict by removing supply lines?




I would actually argue that belts are marginally safer than anomalies at this point, because it's so ingrained that mining at belts is so awful that very few- if any- people actually do it.

It's not just that it is easy and efficient, you make double or triple the income in an anomaly than you would with an asteroid belt. If you are managing, say, 5 miners- if you put them in an anomaly, they can all shoot one rock for a solid amount of time- 15, 20 minutes. If you put them in an asteroid belt, they each have to shoot different rocks, and depending on skills/boosts, may have to switch rocks every cycle. You have downtime targeting and switching rocks, moving to the new "cherry" rocks to pick, etc. Not to mention the cluster of clicking that is required to manually target, change crystals, etc- every cycle. So yes, anomalies have obsoleted asteroid belts, as you mention above. If anomalies didn't exist, mineral prices would be through the roof and all items would cost a hell of a lot more than they do now.

It's not really a problem of discipline when the supply of minerals in null is so horribly imbalanced. Many people are already sitting on huge stockpiles of zyd/mega because the price is so low. There is just such a flood of high ends that people would have to hold 90% of the high ends they mine to not destroy the market- the problem with that is that most of the m3 in anoms consist of high end minerals. An additional problem is that a miner could consistently mine more low end minerals from anomalies than they could cherry picking asteroid belts due to the loss of time mentioned above.

The changes suggested would rebalance the entire mineral market- normalizing supply to match the "rarity" of ores. All they really need to do is reduce the volume of high end minerals in null anomalies. Simply remove 2/3 of the m3 of high end ores from the null anoms. They could add that m3 back as veld. Or any other ore. Or not at all.

Thinking about it, they should remove 90% of the volume of high end ores out of null anoms. Anomalies could supply large amounts of low/mid ends, and high ends are exclusive to belts only (except for some high ends at the larger anoms). That would be a solution that would help individual (ninja) miners as well as large scale multibox miners- since it would be impossible to realistically strip asteroid belts without Broadcasting being legal after the 1st of the year.

Regarding your last point- t1 mineral self sufficiency is not a bad thing. We already have access to all the t1 minerals in the game. The problem is that there is no incentive to actually utilize the local t1 mineral resources because the relative income is so incredibly low because of the imbalances described above. We still need to trade for regional ice, regional moon minerals, all wormhole products, faction equipment/ships/ammunition, etc.
Hippinse
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#169 - 2014-12-05 23:41:39 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
If you put them in an asteroid belt, they each have to shoot different rocks, and depending on skills/boosts, may have to switch rocks every cycle. You have downtime targeting and switching rocks, moving to the new "cherry" rocks to pick, etc. Not to mention the cluster of clicking that is required to manually target, change crystals, etc- every cycle.


This is amusing to me, because you're describing highsec mining, only better. (Since the belt rocks in null aren't ever touched, I'm sure they're much larger than the typical hisec belt rock.) One is put in mind of a billionaire telling a homeless person about the yacht that he doesn't use anymore because the engine is underpowered. I see the point, but empathy is difficult. Blink

Mr Omniblivion wrote:
If anomalies didn't exist, mineral prices would be through the roof and all items would cost a hell of a lot more than they do now.


Stipulated. Mining in every corner of the game would also be much more lucrative. I'm very curious what would happen 'next' after that, but that isn't what we're talking about so I'll refrain from derailing this. I will say that all items costing more isn't necessarily a 100% bad thing, but there's lots of variables.

Mr Omniblivion wrote:
The changes suggested would rebalance the entire mineral market- normalizing supply to match the "rarity" of ores. All they really need to do is reduce the volume of high end minerals in null anomalies. Simply remove 2/3 of the m3 of high end ores from the null anoms. They could add that m3 back as veld. Or any other ore. Or not at all.


If that came to pass, I would hope that 'not at all' was the starting point so that the ramifications could be monitored.

I don't fully agree with your position (I still think it benefits one group of players at the expense of another, and it corrects a "problem" that the affected players directly contribute to) but I appreciate the dialogue. Thanks.
Niskin
The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc.
The Chicken Coop
#170 - 2014-12-06 00:11:49 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
Thinking about it, they should remove 90% of the volume of high end ores out of null anoms. Anomalies could supply large amounts of low/mid ends, and high ends are exclusive to belts only (except for some high ends at the larger anoms). That would be a solution that would help individual (ninja) miners as well as large scale multibox miners- since it would be impossible to realistically strip asteroid belts without Broadcasting being legal after the 1st of the year.


+1

It's Dark In Here - The Lonely Wormhole Blog

Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.

-MooMooDachshundCow
Shelom Severasse
Legion Ascending
Fraternity.
#171 - 2014-12-06 00:33:00 UTC
Maybe im too newb to get the idea of whats going on, but, if youre short on x, why not mine x? Instead of telling ccp to change the anoms and belts

As an example, i have an indy alt, i use that alt to do a few different things, one of those things is mining. When i need zydrine, i mine jaspet, when i need isogen i mine kernite etc etc. when i need tritanium, like always, i mine some veldspar.

So i honestly dont really see the problem here.

Why not mine what you need?

Seems kinda dumb to mine the ever loving crap out of high end ores when the demand for the mineral volume you get out of these ores just isnt there. When supply outweighs demand, there will invariably be a decrease in price level of x product. Meaning less profitability, and, by extension, and increase in demand for lower end minerals that arent being mined.
FunGu Arsten
Ascendance
Goonswarm Federation
#172 - 2014-12-06 13:17:08 UTC  |  Edited by: FunGu Arsten
Shelom Severasse wrote:
Maybe im too newb to get the idea of whats going on, but, if youre short on x, why not mine x? Instead of telling ccp to change the anoms and belts

As an example, i have an indy alt, i use that alt to do a few different things, one of those things is mining. When i need zydrine, i mine jaspet, when i need isogen i mine kernite etc etc. when i need tritanium, like always, i mine some veldspar.

So i honestly dont really see the problem here.

Why not mine what you need?

Seems kinda dumb to mine the ever loving crap out of high end ores when the demand for the mineral volume you get out of these ores just isnt there. When supply outweighs demand, there will invariably be a decrease in price level of x product. Meaning less profitability, and, by extension, and increase in demand for lower end minerals that arent being mined.


I believe you should indeed mine what makes a profit, but with anomolies you dont have that option. You have to strip the intire anomolybelt for it to respawn
> you used to strip the belt completely to recycle the A B C's, and you mined out the lowends and stockpiled them
> now you have to mine the A B C to cycle the lowends again

So to get the good ore you mine the ones that are "uselss" and basicly, you end up with "wastage" highend minerals.

However you turn this, there will always be a bottleneck mineral. At this moment its not a mineral primarily found in the highend ore types...

Its in ccp's hands now, until they change demand/supply the highend mineral stockpiles will grow and grow...
Tenchi Sal
White Knights of Equestria
#173 - 2014-12-06 14:10:23 UTC
Having mined in null before and after anomolies, i can tell you the two biggest problems are anomolies and the leadership of nullsec alliances.

anomolies flood the market with high ends, keeping the prices low.

alliance leadership will boot you and pod you if you are found following the basic market rules of supply and demand. for example, if you are found selling veldspar at higher prices then jita because no one else wants to mine the crap, you are called a price gouger and are thrown out. they refuse to see their own fault so they come on the forums, cry, and blame ccp.(this example is when veldspar was 2 isk and really, no one wanted to mine the crap in null but everyone NEEDED it.)

easiest solution to everything, get rid of anomolies so high ends become more rare again and tell the alliances to htfu and learn about supply and demand.
Shelom Severasse
Legion Ascending
Fraternity.
#174 - 2014-12-06 22:03:19 UTC
FunGu Arsten wrote:
Shelom Severasse wrote:
Maybe im too newb to get the idea of whats going on, but, if youre short on x, why not mine x? Instead of telling ccp to change the anoms and belts

As an example, i have an indy alt, i use that alt to do a few different things, one of those things is mining. When i need zydrine, i mine jaspet, when i need isogen i mine kernite etc etc. when i need tritanium, like always, i mine some veldspar.

So i honestly dont really see the problem here.

Why not mine what you need?

Seems kinda dumb to mine the ever loving crap out of high end ores when the demand for the mineral volume you get out of these ores just isnt there. When supply outweighs demand, there will invariably be a decrease in price level of x product. Meaning less profitability, and, by extension, and increase in demand for lower end minerals that arent being mined.


I believe you should indeed mine what makes a profit, but with anomolies you dont have that option. You have to strip the intire anomolybelt for it to respawn
> you used to strip the belt completely to recycle the A B C's, and you mined out the lowends and stockpiled them
> now you have to mine the A B C to cycle the lowends again

So to get the good ore you mine the ones that are "uselss" and basicly, you end up with "wastage" highend minerals.

However you turn this, there will always be a bottleneck mineral. At this moment its not a mineral primarily found in the highend ore types...

Its in ccp's hands now, until they change demand/supply the highend mineral stockpiles will grow and grow...

Ok, maybe the anoms need tweaking, idk. But, if youre trying to tell me that you cant get low ends cuz you wont mine the asteroid belts,,, im not following you at all haha. Null belts are huge and have everything, or atleast most of what you need. Sure, the rats are a pain, but im sure someone in those huge alliances has a combat alt that they can sit in a belt to pew red crosses when they show up.
Aplysia Vejun
Children of Agasul
#175 - 2014-12-07 00:09:17 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:


The point is not the refusal to go into the belts. The point is that if you look at the numbers, going to the belt in null is always a significant net loss, especially if you have multiple miners.

So: low end ores are still too cheap?


Mr Omniblivion wrote:

Null belts are still littered with high end ores, just like anomalies. So cherry picking the low end ores out of null belts still requires a ton of movement, switching rocks, etc. All of which takes time, which cuts your actual income down to a pittance per hour.

You dont want to move? Your loss!
or
You would earn more money with anomalies? Ok, do it - it just means, that the lowend ores are too cheap.

Pro tip: the rocks in the highsec belts are much smaller and people are still able to mine there. I wonder how..
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#176 - 2014-12-07 00:46:17 UTC
prices will be f*** as long as minerals are only available in a fixed relation to each other. As long as people are forced to mine X in order to get Y, the price of X is going to be ****.

ffinding ABCs should also be like finding a 10/10, not like grinding another sanctum/haven
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#177 - 2014-12-07 13:02:35 UTC
I haven't been to null-sec so I don't know the dimensions or shaping of the asteroid belts there. I can only presume they can't be that much different in size to the asteroid belts anywhere else. So regarding a comment made about excessive movement being needed can you not spend a little time to set up bookmarks in asteroid belts Question Given the increased mining laser ranges on some mining ships you would then have little or no movement required for the mining ships. Obviously you would also be a distance from warp-in so would have a small degree of extra security as well.

An additional thought as others have pointed out is the apparent lack of common sense in the way miners seem to operate in null-sec. For example if my fridge is full of food I'm not going to sit down and eat all the contents of the fridge in one sitting. Could the null-sec alliances not set up some kind of OPEC-style committee to control the sale of high end minerals sourced in null-sec Question It could still be transported & stored at trade hubs for later sale if storage was a concern. Others control the flow of low ends in high sec admittedly in an ad-hoc fashion so with the political control capability in null-sec this should be possible there too. Question

" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. " Rick. " Find out what ? " Abraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. " Rick. Season four.   ' The Walking Dead. ' .
Aplysia Vejun
Children of Agasul
#178 - 2014-12-07 14:33:16 UTC
Gilbaron wrote:
prices will be f*** as long as minerals are only available in a fixed relation to each other. As long as people are forced to mine X in order to get Y, the price of X is going to be ****.

As long as mining X to get Y is more profitable than just mining Y (in belts) it will stay like this. Prices of X are still too high and Y too low.
FunGu Arsten
Ascendance
Goonswarm Federation
#179 - 2014-12-07 16:32:29 UTC  |  Edited by: FunGu Arsten
Shelom Severasse wrote:
FunGu Arsten wrote:
Shelom Severasse wrote:
Maybe im too newb to get the idea of whats going on, but, if youre short on x, why not mine x? Instead of telling ccp to change the anoms and belts

As an example, i have an indy alt, i use that alt to do a few different things, one of those things is mining. When i need zydrine, i mine jaspet, when i need isogen i mine kernite etc etc. when i need tritanium, like always, i mine some veldspar.

So i honestly dont really see the problem here.

Why not mine what you need?

Seems kinda dumb to mine the ever loving crap out of high end ores when the demand for the mineral volume you get out of these ores just isnt there. When supply outweighs demand, there will invariably be a decrease in price level of x product. Meaning less profitability, and, by extension, and increase in demand for lower end minerals that arent being mined.


I believe you should indeed mine what makes a profit, but with anomolies you dont have that option. You have to strip the intire anomolybelt for it to respawn
> you used to strip the belt completely to recycle the A B C's, and you mined out the lowends and stockpiled them
> now you have to mine the A B C to cycle the lowends again

So to get the good ore you mine the ones that are "uselss" and basicly, you end up with "wastage" highend minerals.

However you turn this, there will always be a bottleneck mineral. At this moment its not a mineral primarily found in the highend ore types...

Its in ccp's hands now, until they change demand/supply the highend mineral stockpiles will grow and grow...

Ok, maybe the anoms need tweaking, idk. But, if youre trying to tell me that you cant get low ends cuz you wont mine the asteroid belts,,, im not following you at all haha. Null belts are huge and have everything, or atleast most of what you need. Sure, the rats are a pain, but im sure someone in those huge alliances has a combat alt that they can sit in a belt to pew red crosses when they show up.


you mine 100 units of lowend and mine 20units highend in anom -
you now finished the intire site and have a new one pop up:
you mine 100 units of lowend and 20 units of highend again

repeat this at a ratio of 100:20 lowends vs highends


NOW

the global industry only needs a ration of 100:10 lowends vs highends wich means you have a good portion of highends you will never need/be able to use. With the refining changes, highsec adds even less % in lowends...
> aslong as the ratio available in nullsec isnt changed you will never be able to actualy use the highends.

mining in belts is a waste, the rocks are never big enough to make it worth it and you lose efficiency on the mining cycles. IF they do grow to a decent size, your nifty rocks are gone after a day mining and you go back anomolies...



to many highens just means they aren't rare enough so they drop in value....
Zedutchman
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#180 - 2014-12-07 18:12:52 UTC

Mr Omniblivion wrote:



The point is not the refusal to go into the belts. The point is that if you look at the numbers, going to the belt in null is always a significant net loss, especially if you have multiple miners. Until a major change is made by CCP, it will always be more efficient to strip out null anomalies and import missing minerals from high sec (or just not mine at all, since mining income is still abysmally low).




That's just it though.....

Your not going into static belts because it's not worth it....

If it's not worth it to change your play style then it's not really broken. It's just annoying.


Now.... If Mex prices get to 2x or 3x times what they are now..... THEN we might see some shifts in player behavior. Until then just pay the high-sec miners. It's not like they are getting too rich smashing belts in .8 space.

The other solution I would propose is to make mining WAY more active so it can't be effectively multi-boxed, but that'll never happen.