These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
GankYou
9B30FF Labs
#261 - 2015-03-23 22:52:53 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
Shiloh Templeton wrote:
I stated earlier in the thread I think there is benefit to the overall game to have synergy between null and hisec. If CCP thinks Null should be self-sufficient, I wish they would do likewise for hisec.


Having the raw building blocks for t1 items hardly makes us self-sufficient. Unless you assume people in null only run t1 ships and fits without any faction or lp items or ammo. Also, what about Ice? Are you suggesting that Goons only use Nitrogen Isotopes? What about datacores, faction ammo and mods, implants, t3 ships, or even moon minerals not found in our space? When at war, where do you think we buy ships from? Highsec.


Spot on. Smile
Hippinse
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#262 - 2015-03-23 23:15:39 UTC
GankYou wrote:
Hippinse wrote:
GankYou wrote:
However, is the proposed change bad?


It's possible that optimizing the game (reprocessing, industry, and now mining) around one subset of players at the expense of the other subsets will turn out badly for those not in the favored subset..


I don't see the issue you all purport to see.

You think Zydrine below Nocx for 5 years is alright? Nullsec used to have mining, you know. Used to. Back in 2007-8 when the game was healthy and breaking all-time highs in population numbers.

Now, all you have is stagnating nullsec ALONG with highsec - only the hardcorers are left, the people who are used to 58 Mex and 400 Zydrine, elite small roaming gangs spamming GFGF with nobody even considering taking sov of another entity, and for them nothing else matters.

Even if the game dies due to severe structural imbalances and distorted markets, they want to enjoy their little sand castle empires for a little longer.

Now THAT is the real issue at hand.


I'll confess that I'm not certain that I see your issue either. Not denying it, just not certain that I follow you. This is probably due to my relative inexperience and my limited exposure (hisec and now WH space).


I'll try to sum up my issues:

1. Risk -vs- reward and supply -vs- demand make more sense to me than, "BUT THE BROCHURE SAYS IT'S RARE SO WHO CARES THAT WE'RE DROWNING IN THESE THINGS. MAKE THEM EXPENSIVE AGAIN, and also give us the cheap stuff, we need that too and don't want to buy it from people we're shooting."

2. If a group is already scaling well beyond what was intended so that you're (CCP) having to re-designate entire endgame ship classes, why are you (CCP) optimizing their resources to make them self-sufficient? They were already outpacing development when they were importing. And don't forget, lots of them were hunting and/or financing the hunting of the same subset they were importing from.

Just...hard to reconcile this in a way that makes sense to me from a logical perspective. (I guess if the DeBeers corporation plays Eve this will all make sense)
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#263 - 2015-03-23 23:24:51 UTC
:facepalm:
Hippinse
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#264 - 2015-03-23 23:29:41 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
The irony in this is that the region that benefits the most from this change is Provi and renter regions, because they have the highest density of miners mining ore in their space.


There is also a certain irony in observing how hard you've campaigned for this change followed immediately by downplaying now that it's been announced.

Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#265 - 2015-03-23 23:36:16 UTC
Hippinse wrote:
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
The irony in this is that the region that benefits the most from this change is Provi and renter regions, because they have the highest density of miners mining ore in their space.


There is also a certain irony in observing how hard you've campaigned for this change followed immediately by downplaying now that it's been announced.



You should probably read the last two pages, specifically where I directly commented on stocking up on zyd and mega
Hippinse
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#266 - 2015-03-23 23:47:48 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
Hippinse wrote:
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
The irony in this is that the region that benefits the most from this change is Provi and renter regions, because they have the highest density of miners mining ore in their space.


There is also a certain irony in observing how hard you've campaigned for this change followed immediately by downplaying now that it's been announced.



You should probably read the last two pages, specifically where I directly commented on stocking up on zyd and mega


I don't see how you commenting on stocking up on zyd and mega speaks to this:

I'm saying, you pushed hard for this. Your posts were regular enough to give the appearance of scheduling. You kept driving home how this NEEDED to happen. It was imperative.

And now that it's announced, you're saying that it's not a big deal. It'll benefit others more than you. It won't benefit your corp or even null that much. Etc. Downplay, downplay, downplay this formerly imperative thing.

It's an impressive narrative. Very well executed. But I don't have to like it.

GankYou
9B30FF Labs
#267 - 2015-03-24 12:30:37 UTC  |  Edited by: GankYou
Hippinse,

these market distortions lead to lower player activity over time, as people who are bored of poking Veldspar try something new, and say, "**** it". Smile

There needs to be a balance across all tiers of activities, mining in particular - which used to be balanced, when nullsec mined in asteroid belts.

Highsec is already 1) Overcrowded; 2) Has too many high ISK p/h activities for you to say anything about null.

So please, be humble and logical. Smile

P.S. http://i.imgur.com/ReUZfak.jpg - Top right corner. Also, Ice mining is evenly distributed - that's what I would like to see with basic ores. Blink
GankYou
9B30FF Labs
#268 - 2015-03-24 12:35:59 UTC  |  Edited by: GankYou
Hippinse wrote:

I'm saying, you pushed hard for this. Your posts were regular enough to give the appearance of scheduling. You kept driving home how this NEEDED to happen. It was imperative.


It is needed if Eve is to survive, because the current system only benefits vets with years of experience in logistics of supplying null and exporting the High ends, which probably barely covers the jump fuel cost. Smile

You can't have a new player in an alliance grab a hauler after mining Arkonor in the most dangerous regions, and hauling it to Empire to make a massive profit.

I remember doing just that, although hauling was done in frigates and interceptors, because the volume of Megacyte & Zydrine were worth in gold. Smile

TL;DR Confirming I'm an agent of Goonswarm. Blink
Hippinse
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#269 - 2015-03-25 20:35:42 UTC
GankYou wrote:
It is needed if Eve is to survive, because the current system only benefits vets with years of experience in logistics of supplying null and exporting the High ends, which probably barely covers the jump fuel cost. Smile


So, here's disconnect #1: You're referencing the situation if left unpatched as though it is inevitable. There are 2 other solutions that exist within the game today that have been debated and dismissed. Null reps have flatly stated that they will NOT use either of them, because they are not optimal compared to the preferred choice.

The preferred choice (continue mining low end minerals in anomalies and cycle the anomalies as fast as possible) results in a glut of high end minerals.

This is the definition of supply / demand while simultaneously being an example of Eve's much-lauded "actions have consequences".

The people driving mineral prices into the ground are refusing to stop doing that, and have now gotten CCP to step in and 'fix' things.

Now, normally, WHO CARES, right? This is the meta. People will act in their own interests, hypocrisy is winning, propaganda is useful because it works, and you can't ask the leopard to change its spots. But this is a closed system. What bothers me isn't that high-end mineral prices are going to rise, what bothers me is that low-end minerals are probably going to crash and the still-developing compressed ore market is about to die on the vine. Optimizing null ores will take isk out of one subset's wallets, and put it into another's.

That said, even with this not turning out the way that I would prefer, I won't be hyperbolizing the inevitable death of Eve.


GankYou wrote:
You can't have a new player in an alliance grab a hauler after mining Arkonor in the most dangerous regions, and hauling it to Empire to make a massive profit.

I remember doing just that, although hauling was done in frigates and interceptors, because the volume of Megacyte & Zydrine were worth in gold. Smile

TL;DR Confirming I'm an agent of Goonswarm. Blink


I'm certain that lots of previous potential money-making tasks that were new-player friendly also don't exist. I don't see why this is a sacred cow.

With the relatively-recent addition of the compression array, compressing ore and selling it to null with a healthy margin WAS new-player friendly. Other relatively-recent changes made putting up a small tower when needed and taking it back down a low barrier to entry. Where is your concern for the new player?
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#270 - 2015-03-25 23:38:35 UTC
Hippinse wrote:
~poorly thought out argument~


Observe: the wild grr-goons pubbie that doesn't actually know what he's talking about fights tooth and nail to argue that anything a dirty goonie says is incorrect and propaganda for their own individual agenda.

Just another day on eve-o
GankYou
9B30FF Labs
#271 - 2015-03-26 00:16:52 UTC
I rather enjoy the sight of this burning theatre, whose roof is about to collapse. Smile The game of musical chairs is about to end; the soothing music that had been playing for so long is but a faint echo now.

Wisemen have started heading for the nearest exits.

Given the years of distortions and pressure build-ups, some things become inevitable, Hippinse. Smile

Game. Set. Match.
Hippinse
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#272 - 2015-03-26 04:26:38 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
Observe: the wild grr-goons pubbie that doesn't actually know what he's talking about fights tooth and nail to argue that anything a dirty goonie says is incorrect and propaganda for their own individual agenda.

Just another day on eve-o


You've shut down a handful of 'grr goons' folks in this thread already. I think anyone actually reading the posts isn't putting me into that pile. But not-grr-goons doesn't automatically mean sniveling sycophant, either.

I could easily find any number of posts from people complaining that their choices should be validated by CCP. Haulers anti-tanking their craft, filling it with valuable goods, and then auto-piloting between markets. Poof. Miners yield-tanking and afking. Poof.

When these victims come to the forums to demand that CCP remove the downside to their choices, the playerbase mostly reacts by pointing out that the downside is being caused by the victim. The victim had options which were rejected. The victims refuse these options because they can state that mathematically, their [broken] choice [which CCP should fix] is superior. ["But autopiloting is more efficient than sitting here manually piloting" "But I make less isk in a procurer." etc.]

See any parallels?

Mr Omniblivion wrote:
people have suggested to just "cherry pick the other ores you need" or "mine in null belts" or other related items. The issue here is that mining in null anomalies is literally twice as profitable (if not more) than mining in any other place- provided you have more than one or two miners. This number skyrockets the more miners you have.


Mr Omniblivion wrote:
Mining in asteroid belts in null will never happen because it takes so much micromanagement that you could do any other activity in null and make at least double the income.


(^^^ That last line makes me smile. That's the point (as described) at which an economist will tell you that you should stop mining and do the other activities and then buy any minerals you need. But, that line also more-than-hints that no matter how bad the financials get, strip-mining anomalies won't cease.)

There are some really good balance-related reasons not to make one place the 'best' in every category. This fix will just end up skewing things even worse. (I can point to your own posts that describe how this imbalance was created by CCP buffing null mining.) In the short term, it won't be null paying the price though, which is kind of like if hisec got CCP to declare hisec pvp-free. They'd get what they wanted, and it would be other people who woke up to a new worse-than-before experience.

That's what I don't like about this.
GankYou
9B30FF Labs
#273 - 2015-03-26 15:50:41 UTC
An idealist. Smile

Here I thought you were sitting on mountians of Mexallon and five sets of researched capital ship components BPOs, making you continue using special logic to argue the point. Blink
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#274 - 2015-03-26 18:34:26 UTC
Gilbaron wrote:
I heard the veldspar rocks in nullsec are gigantic


Go go Spodzilla!

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Hippinse
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#275 - 2015-03-27 04:30:27 UTC
GankYou wrote:
An idealist. Smile

Here I thought you were sitting on mountians of Mexallon and five sets of researched capital ship components BPOs, making you continue using special logic to argue the point. Blink


Guilty. What I lack in Mex I more than make up for in naivete and wishful thinking.
Hippinse
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#276 - 2015-03-27 04:50:49 UTC
Mr Omniblivion might have written:

"What your niaeve comparison fails to note, Hippinse, is that unlike the hauler or hisec afk-miner, the nullsec miner can't choose the option that doesn't tank high-end mineral prices on his own. Even if it were to be attempted, there are ramifications to such an action which doom it to failure.

1. Null is comprised of at least 2 powerful entities (and their alts). [CITATION NEEDED] Therefore, the damage being done to the high end minerals has to be fixed by CCP because there is no way to get everyone in null to stop overfarming the high ends.

2. Because of #1, anyone attempting to change their mining behavior faces a 'Nash Equilibrium'. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium) Any party that stops overmining high ends will reward any other nullsec inhabitants who do not stop overmining."




So, yeah, I get that something had to be done. But since this situation was created by CCP buffing null, fixing it by now optimizing the null ores (aka 'buffing null') seems a little like me trying to 'eat my way thin'. (And that isn't working out for me so far.)
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#277 - 2015-03-27 10:09:40 UTC
Hippinse wrote:
Mr Omniblivion might have written:

"What your niaeve comparison fails to note, Hippinse, is that unlike the hauler or hisec afk-miner, the nullsec miner can't choose the option that doesn't tank high-end mineral prices on his own. Even if it were to be attempted, there are ramifications to such an action which doom it to failure.

1. Null is comprised of at least 2 powerful entities (and their alts). [CITATION NEEDED] Therefore, the damage being done to the high end minerals has to be fixed by CCP because there is no way to get everyone in null to stop overfarming the high ends.

2. Because of #1, anyone attempting to change their mining behavior faces a 'Nash Equilibrium'. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium) Any party that stops overmining high ends will reward any other nullsec inhabitants who do not stop overmining."




So, yeah, I get that something had to be done. But since this situation was created by CCP buffing null, fixing it by now optimizing the null ores (aka 'buffing null') seems a little like me trying to 'eat my way thin'. (And that isn't working out for me so far.)


If null-sec is currently largely controlled by two or a small number of aligned powerful entities why can they not exercise some control over the miners in their areas? The large sov holders can & do exercise control over their members,& maybe renters, when 'organising' who gets onto the CSM. In the past they have also organised themselves for campaigns such as control of ice supply and prices, movement of haulers, usage of trade hubs, and large scale destruction of targeted ship types. Why not act like an OPEC style organisation and wrest some control over the resources you are largely in control of ? This would be a fine example of 'player designed content' would it not ?

As for the 'Nash Equilibrium' I'm not convinced that has to be the case. It's purely common sense to manage your resources in a strategic manner to control supply and income. The alternative is that we ask CCP to reduce the amount of Megacyte & Zydrine in the null-sec rocks. But the playerbase exacting control over their resource bases without direct CCP intervention would probably result in more exciting gameplay.

" 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. ' .

Shiloh Templeton
Cheyenne HET Co
#278 - 2015-03-27 15:43:53 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
Shiloh Templeton wrote:
I stated earlier in the thread I think there is benefit to the overall game to have synergy between null and hisec. If CCP thinks Null should be self-sufficient, I wish they would do likewise for Hisec.

I really don't get why people make this argument. This argument is completely incorrect and, for lack of a better word, Ignorant.

Which point do you disagree with? That synergy between null and hisec is good for the game, or that null is moving towards self-sufficiency? Or both?

Quote:
Nullsec will be getting a buff to mining ores, ... the goal being to make nullsec more or less self-sufficient mineral-wise. Source: TheMitanni.com

Once the minerals are rebalanced isn't the next logical campaign to have all the moon goo you need in your region (if it doesn't already) and change to a single type of ice as was done with decryptors?
GankYou
9B30FF Labs
#279 - 2015-03-27 16:05:05 UTC  |  Edited by: GankYou
Shiloh Templeton wrote:

Once the minerals are rebalanced isn't the next logical campaign to have all the moon goo you need in your region (if it doesn't already) and change to a single type of ice as was done with decryptors?


That's a fairly good idea - make T2 the new T1. However, I suspect this is highly tongue-in-cheek, so I must add that the basic minerals are the life-blood of New Eden - making it reasonably available is good for the whole of Eve.

Another point is that, in order for the new sov system to work, some regions need to be better in the resource-department than others to fascilitate player-generated "content". Blink

What said resources are going to be is for CCP to influence - I must emphasie the word influence, because the markets and manufacturing decide based on bottlenecks in supply. Back in 2008-2009 during the height of the Tech 2 revolution, Dysprosium was the most sought after resource, which culminated in the complete destruction of the Band of Brothers alliance and the capture of Delve. Smile

Before that, it was Arkonor and other high-end ores, along with 6/10, 8/10 and 10/10 DED complexes, which at that time had fixed known locations and could only be ran so often.

NICE REGION, WE'LL TAKE IT!
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#280 - 2015-03-30 01:27:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Gilbaron
as long as it's much easier to import ships and modules from jita than it is to import ressources, people will continue to do so.

and there is more to it than just the ease of transportation. the extremely unstable demand in nullsec makes it very very hard to justify a serious investment in production capabilities