Player Features and Ideas Discussion

What about the richest country in Europe? Did it have an Arkonor surplus?

I've learned you can't make suggestions here that might make mining more of the go-to for the main mineral acquisition of the game. In order for this to happen mission refining would need to be drastically changed so that it is far more profitable to sell modules on the market than to recycle them. I made a suggestion to turn all minerals that were from mods into a 'recycled' grade that couldn't be used in ship production but could then be 'purified' via skills but even less of the mineral value. Ex: Recycling gives like max 75% in "recycled" minerals which can then be purified to get a max return of 50% of that 75%. This would make mining skyrocket in profit while nerfing missioning ONLY if they recycled modules but the missioners here came out in force.

I think that's only true because it still gives a decent amount of isk return to recycle the modules and sell the minerals. Drastically lowering the amount of isk return from recycling while keeping the value of the module itself the same theoretically what would happen if my suggestion was implemented.

Ore price is based on mineral yield of that ore
You cannot raise the price of the ore because it will raise the price of minerals within it.

Increasing the mineral yield of ores would have the opposite affect through over supply


Nearly everything in the game is made by players. Those items require minerals to build. Price is set based on mineral value of that item + cost of production + incentive...

You cannot alter the base building block of this economy (minerals via ores) without altering the cost of everything in the game.

Want more returns? Build **** with your minerals and ores yourself. Cut out the middle man.

Since you have no understood the point of the thread, I bow out of your contribution to it.

You are correct, the description should be more vague in reference to rarity and value. Add one word and its solved; historically.
No more problems, business as usual.

Practical, effective and with a 100% chance of success. I approve if lore is going to be used to justify any changes.

Your idea was bad when you posted it because it was based on a spurious assumption that a large percentage of the mineral market came from reprocessed loot, when in reality, only a tiny fraction of the mineral market comes from loot.

It was not this way at one point, but then they (in no particular order)

0: removed NPC shuttle sell orders, removing the trit price ceiling
1: slightly reduced rat drops across the board.
2: removed drone poo from the game (this was absolutely massive)
3:slightly reduced it yet again.
3: removes meta 0 mods from rat drops, cutting it by a quarter or so
4: cut refining returns of modules by half.

All in all, including the drone poo removal, they probably reduced the amount of minerals coming from non mining sources by 95% or more.

But apparently, when everyone (from many walks of EVE) pointed out that reprocessed modules no longer accounted for any significant portion of the mineral flow, we were all just dirty missioners who couldn't understand a good idea when we saw it.


On a more serious note: Trit is over 6 isk a unit. I remember when it was under 3, under 4, under 5, under 6. And it is still slowly rising. You miners have it so much better than your compatriots of years past and yet all you do is continue to whine about how harsh you have it with sky high prices on the most basic and readily available mineral types. And then you wonder why people wont take you seriously.

You made a spacious request to increase it's use in manufacturing, which doesn't change it's rarity. Rarity is dictated by supply.
You did request to limit the supply, but you failed to grasp the magnitude of nullsec alliance's mining branches, and what goes into securing a system for your miners. People have min/maxed this a long time ago.

You were told this many times, but you ignored it.

If I need to read carefully, either the subject is deeply technical, or the writing is bad. As you have stated that you think the OP is clear, I will do a fill critique for you, so you can edit if you see fit, or improve any future posts.

Definitions:
There was no clear statement of what you mean by rare. Does this mean the 5 & 10% yield ores? ABCs? You don't specify except by a single example.

Organization
There was no single sentence which contained the basic idea as simply as ppossible.
You open at least two methods of making the cahnges you want but neither is spelled out clearly in its own sentence, paragraph or other logically sized chunk.
There are three text blocks of approximately paragraph size without cohesive theme to them, and with out any transition or link.

Assumptions
You present the problem you want to solve as a given, without but a single refrence to the description. This means it is easy to argue that your selected issue is an actual problem.
You present the implicit assumption that lore should be a primary driver of game mechanics.

Content:
You present two very early concept level ways of reconciling game mechanics with lore, but they aren't even fleshed out enough to be called skeleton s.