These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[April] Ore, Mineral and Nullsec Mining Anomaly Revamp

First post First post First post
Author
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#241 - 2015-04-16 18:18:39 UTC
Makari Aeron wrote:
Unsure how I feel about the Mercoxit reduction. That seems like it's going to greatly affect all T2 production but time will tell i suppose. I always found it tedious to mine to begin with and you require quite a bit if yo're going to make anything substantial in any moderate quantity. I kinda expected about 25-50% more mercoxit in the null belts since that's really the only place you can get it.

like a billion times more is produced than used currently
Laughable Xhosa Girl
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#242 - 2015-04-16 18:57:55 UTC
NO let me tell u why u, mr. succesful nullsec player ARE WRONG and why I, pubbie mcscummington AM RIGHT
Valterra Craven
#243 - 2015-04-16 19:09:48 UTC
Querns & Mr Omniblivion

I'm still surprised to see you guys so enthused by these changes. I still think CCP needs to be taken to task for continually introducing content that breaks things and then simply applying band aides to fix things instead of addressing problems head on.

I'm sure both of you can remember (and if not can at least look it up) that both Zyd and Mega used to be well above 4k per unit. I remember being able to mine in an 8 mining laser apoc and still being able to make some decent money back then (that was before barges had a good tank and the apoc was a great belt rat tank and miner back then) It wasn't until the drone regions and before mining anoms that things started to get wonky. Its was that new content that broke the game in terms of mining viability (aka isk per hour) given the steep drop in mineral prices.

Anyway, regardless, what I'm getting at is that if this does work, aka industry picks up in null, I still think because of the way anoms work that you will end up with excess high ends. In other words even with the doubling of zyd and mega usage in everything, if you guys actually start doing real industry in null like you want, the extra industry is going to offset the doubling and we end up right back with cheap zyd and mega that makes mining really not worth what it used to be.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#244 - 2015-04-16 19:17:25 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Querns & Mr Omniblivion

I'm still surprised to see you guys so enthused by these changes. I still think CCP needs to be taken to task for continually introducing content that breaks things and then simply applying band aides to fix things instead of addressing problems head on.

I'm sure both of you can remember (and if not can at least look it up) that both Zyd and Mega used to be well above 4k per unit. I remember being able to mine in an 8 mining laser apoc and still being able to make some decent money back then (that was before barges had a good tank and the apoc was a great belt rat tank and miner back then) It wasn't until the drone regions and before mining anoms that things started to get wonky. Its was that new content that broke the game in terms of mining viability (aka isk per hour) given the steep drop in mineral prices.

Anyway, regardless, what I'm getting at is that if this does work, aka industry picks up in null, I still think because of the way anoms work that you will end up with excess high ends. In other words even with the doubling of zyd and mega usage in everything, if you guys actually start doing real industry in null like you want, the extra industry is going to offset the doubling and we end up right back with cheap zyd and mega that makes mining really not worth what it used to be.

This is pretty much incorrect.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#245 - 2015-04-16 19:20:42 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Querns & Mr Omniblivion

I'm still surprised to see you guys so enthused by these changes. I still think CCP needs to be taken to task for continually introducing content that breaks things and then simply applying band aides to fix things instead of addressing problems head on.

I'm sure both of you can remember (and if not can at least look it up) that both Zyd and Mega used to be well above 4k per unit. I remember being able to mine in an 8 mining laser apoc and still being able to make some decent money back then (that was before barges had a good tank and the apoc was a great belt rat tank and miner back then) It wasn't until the drone regions and before mining anoms that things started to get wonky. Its was that new content that broke the game in terms of mining viability (aka isk per hour) given the steep drop in mineral prices.

Anyway, regardless, what I'm getting at is that if this does work, aka industry picks up in null, I still think because of the way anoms work that you will end up with excess high ends. In other words even with the doubling of zyd and mega usage in everything, if you guys actually start doing real industry in null like you want, the extra industry is going to offset the doubling and we end up right back with cheap zyd and mega that makes mining really not worth what it used to be.

zyd and mega are not **** because they're overproduced in a cosmic sense, they're **** because they're significantly overproduced relative to other materials

since you can't build things with just mega/zyd, if you have way more of it produced than other materials it will become worthless and whatever is bottlenecked will be worth something
Valterra Craven
#246 - 2015-04-16 19:22:14 UTC
Querns wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Querns & Mr Omniblivion

Stuff

This is pretty much incorrect.


Could you please explain why?
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#247 - 2015-04-16 19:29:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Querns
Valterra Craven wrote:
Querns wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Querns & Mr Omniblivion

Stuff

This is pretty much incorrect.


Could you please explain why?

Take a look at the site comps again and calculate how many minerals come from a given site, then compare it to ship mineral comps.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#248 - 2015-04-16 19:57:50 UTC
EvilweaselSA wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Querns & Mr Omniblivion

I'm still surprised to see you guys so enthused by these changes. I still think CCP needs to be taken to task for continually introducing content that breaks things and then simply applying band aides to fix things instead of addressing problems head on.

I'm sure both of you can remember (and if not can at least look it up) that both Zyd and Mega used to be well above 4k per unit. I remember being able to mine in an 8 mining laser apoc and still being able to make some decent money back then (that was before barges had a good tank and the apoc was a great belt rat tank and miner back then) It wasn't until the drone regions and before mining anoms that things started to get wonky. Its was that new content that broke the game in terms of mining viability (aka isk per hour) given the steep drop in mineral prices.

Anyway, regardless, what I'm getting at is that if this does work, aka industry picks up in null, I still think because of the way anoms work that you will end up with excess high ends. In other words even with the doubling of zyd and mega usage in everything, if you guys actually start doing real industry in null like you want, the extra industry is going to offset the doubling and we end up right back with cheap zyd and mega that makes mining really not worth what it used to be.

zyd and mega are not **** because they're overproduced in a cosmic sense, they're **** because they're significantly overproduced relative to other materials

since you can't build things with just mega/zyd, if you have way more of it produced than other materials it will become worthless and whatever is bottlenecked will be worth something


WIth the new anom balance, mega/zyd become the bottle neck right?
Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#249 - 2015-04-16 21:22:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Basil Pupkin
EvilweaselSA wrote:
"sure, it is trivially easy to be perfectly safe, but in order to be perfectly safe i would have to give up a smidgen of yield which, as a highsec bot-aspirant, i cannot conceive of"

if you want perfect safety being willing to pay for it

also protip: you don't have to put ore in the can

my god, i've mined once, a decade ago, and i know infinitely more on the subject than you do


Bots are fine sacrificing yield, humans are not.

also protip: "special" individuals do not care if you have ore in the can. They are going to loot it anyway, and having the said can near something as helpless as a mining barge is a tard magnet.

Being in a Skiff is not safety, it's a waste of time and ISK (Procurer is equally gank-safe, and, should it be lost in null, 10x cheaper to replace).

You are ignoring the problem that there is no viable barge which doesn't just die pathetically in nullsec outside of blue donut. And in hisec you will be bumped even if you can't be ganked, so having a Skiff solves nothing, atop being inefficient waste of time and ISK - one "special" person can still screw any mining OP, no matter what it fields, so fielding ships which have to stay there longer is something only gewn trolls (who think it's funny pretending to be dumb) could think of.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.

Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#250 - 2015-04-16 21:31:55 UTC
Querns wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Querns wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Querns & Mr Omniblivion

Stuff

This is pretty much incorrect.


Could you please explain why?

Take a look at the site comps again and calculate how many minerals come from a given site, then compare it to ship mineral comps.


I really don't know why you guys even bother trying to educate the pubbies. It is bad enough teaching goons.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#251 - 2015-04-16 21:36:02 UTC
Basil Pupkin wrote:
EvilweaselSA wrote:
"sure, it is trivially easy to be perfectly safe, but in order to be perfectly safe i would have to give up a smidgen of yield which, as a highsec bot-aspirant, i cannot conceive of"

if you want perfect safety being willing to pay for it

also protip: you don't have to put ore in the can

my god, i've mined once, a decade ago, and i know infinitely more on the subject than you do


Bots are fine sacrificing yield, humans are not.

also protip: "special" individuals do not care if you have ore in the can. They are going to loot it anyway, and having the said can near something as helpless as a mining barge is a tard magnet.

Being in a Skiff is not safety, it's a waste of time and ISK (Procurer is equally gank-safe, and, should it be lost in null, 10x cheaper to replace).

You are ignoring the problem that there is no viable barge which doesn't just die pathetically in nullsec outside of blue donut. And in hisec you will be bumped even if you can't be ganked, so having a Skiff solves nothing, atop being inefficient waste of time and ISK - one "special" person can still screw any mining OP, no matter what it fields, so fielding ships which have to stay there longer is something only gewn trolls (who think it's funny pretending to be dumb) could think of.

So what sort of EHP would you consider to not "die pathetically"? I am interested to hear how deep this well of cognitive dissonance goes.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#252 - 2015-04-16 21:40:10 UTC
I dont know, I kind of enjoy watching people try to skate up hill. The masses of high sec have their blinders on so tight that they can not see past anything more then blue doughnut or grr goons. It also give me great joy to see players so unwilling to adapt that at every change they are drug along instead of finding solutions and profiting off changes.

Also I really like the posters idea about giving mining barges some weaponized defense.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#253 - 2015-04-16 21:40:35 UTC
Oh, also:

Basil Pupkin wrote:

You are ignoring the problem that there is no viable barge which doesn't just die pathetically in nullsec outside of blue donut. And in hisec you will be bumped even if you can't be ganked, so having a Skiff solves nothing, atop being inefficient waste of time and ISK - one "special" person can still screw any mining OP, no matter what it fields, so fielding ships which have to stay there longer is something only gewn trolls (who think it's funny pretending to be dumb) could think of.

So at first barges die pathetically, then they don't because of "blue donut?"

The barge is at once incredibly vulnerable, and invincible as well?

It is wise to use the rational part of your brain to post instead of the part of your brain with turbulent emotion and memes that you don't even understand.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#254 - 2015-04-16 21:50:57 UTC
I'm pretty sure all ships die pathetically quickly in hostile space. Not just barges.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#255 - 2015-04-16 21:56:41 UTC
Rowells wrote:
I'm pretty sure all ships die pathetically quickly in hostile space. Not just barges.

Not with the bulwark of the BLUE DONUT guarding them!

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Dentia Caecus
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#256 - 2015-04-16 22:20:41 UTC
Sadly, this thread has been thoroughly hijacked, has devolved into a chest-beating discussion of 0.0 politics and is pretty much dead.

If for some reason, CCP Fozzie or other devs are actually still watching this thread, I am looking forward to any feedback regarding the handful of posts that are both on topic and provide feedback, including, but not limited to:

Do the devs intend to create new bottlenecks such as zydrine;
requests for a little more mex ;
requests for m3 changes of roids, even though OP says not at this time;
addressing comments that the changes do not address mining problems ( even if a dev comment is the "other" issues are left for another time, including exhumer tank, the rorqual obsolescence, etc. );
anything else the devs find relevant.

Thanks
Tinkers
Masterwork Productions Inc
#257 - 2015-04-16 22:25:46 UTC
If you are going to keep Mercoxit in the anoms, you need to increase the morphite usage, a lot. How about adding it to Alchemy to increase the output/efficiency?
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#258 - 2015-04-16 22:48:34 UTC
Dentia Caecus wrote:
Sadly, this thread has been thoroughly hijacked, has devolved into a chest-beating discussion of 0.0 politics and is pretty much dead.

I agree; if only all those other people with dangerously uninformed opinions hadn't started raising a fuss with their tantrum emitters.

Really; one should leave it to the pros to discuss things. People like me.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Sienna Vanjarc
Kimazora Corporation
#259 - 2015-04-16 23:22:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Sienna Vanjarc
I understand and really like the intention of making sov-null more self-sufficient, and increasing income for nullsec miners (to fix risk/reward). That change is needed. But i have the fear this change will reduce income of highsec-miners, possibly even making it not worthwile. This is not needed by any means, as their income is very low already. So you might want to rework the highsec-ores too.

Besides, i want to suggest, that the ore-specialized mining-anomalys (not ice-belts and the ihub-sites), were scannable grav-sites again. This would especially be usefull for mining in lowsec and npc-null, where you don't have unlimited resources like sov 0.0 but the same kind of risk.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#260 - 2015-04-16 23:30:36 UTC
Sienna Vanjarc wrote:
I understand and really like the intention of making sov-null more self-sufficient, and increasing income for nullsec miners (to fix risk/reward). That change is needed. But i have the fear this change will reduce income of highsec-miners, possibly even making it not worthwile. This is not needed by any means, as their income is very low already. So you might want to rework the highsec-ores too.

Besides, i want to suggest, that the ore-specialized mining-anomalys (not ice-belts and the ihub-sites), were scannable grav-sites again. This would especially be usefull for mining in lowsec and npc-null, where you don't have unlimited resources like sov 0.0 but the same kind of risk.

Folks mined the hell out of highsec back when trit was under 3 isk a unit. They'll be fine.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.