These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#441 - 2015-04-21 13:20:05 UTC
Querns wrote:
Sizeof Void wrote:
Rowells wrote:
Hell, since all those miners in highsec seem to be what we balance the entire game around, why don't we remove barge ganking? Or, better yet, increase the refine rate of highsec stations to surpass nullsec, since its only fair to the greater population.

I'm sure that the high sec miners will be happy to hear that null sec players, such as yourself, are finally admitting this is what CCP really should be doing in order to balance and improve the game.

+1

Man, talk about things that would negatively affect the sacred cow of "highsec miner isk/hr" — turning highsec into a risk free theme park would drop lowends to the minimum possible price faster than the OP's changes ever would.


It's be fun to see what would happen but I bet the economy would not take it too well... Selling ore/minerals to NPC buy orders if they become the best price would be odd...
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#442 - 2015-04-21 14:03:45 UTC
Hey everyone. After reading through the feedback so far we've made some tweaks to the compositions of the Anoms. Now the ratios between different minerals have more variance from anom type to anom type, so that nullsec groups will be able to take advantage of the choice of different anoms to get slightly different mineral ratios. For instance, under the new numbers the Mediums have extra Mexallon so if you find you're low on Mex you can mine out some mediums.

The OP has been updated.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#443 - 2015-04-21 14:17:32 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. After reading through the feedback so far we've made some tweaks to the compositions of the Anoms. Now the ratios between different minerals have more variance from anom type to anom type, so that nullsec groups will be able to take advantage of the choice of different anoms to get slightly different mineral ratios. For instance, under the new numbers the Mediums have extra Mexallon so if you find you're low on Mex you can mine out some mediums.

The OP has been updated.

Good move lowering the ark/bist composition of small sites. This should help out the imbalance even more, as this is most likely the anom that is seen and is mined the most, due to its lowest barrier of entry.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#444 - 2015-04-21 14:22:03 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Simon Alfrir wrote:
Much more money is lost from mining in Highsec than in Null. That's what the killlboard is showing.

maybe you need to look at more than just 'this number is bigger than that one. Its not surprising that highsecs massive population (3-4x greater than null iirc) would have more lost from mining barges by volume. It's expected since there are so many more miners in null. What we were comparing is the relative safety, which is far more skewed toward nullsec being the least safe.

Simon Alfrir wrote:
There are more miners in Highsec therefore more people are being hurt than helped by this change.

There is no added game play value (miners need not apply to your Null corps).

No one in this thread has demonstrated why these changes are needed. Answer: The changes aren't needed.

If you really havent bothered to read the dozens of responses as to why the change is needed, I doubt repeating them to you again is going to make you actually read them.

As to hurting more players, just because one group of players is benefitting off the lack of gameplay from another group doesn't justify keeping the status quo.

Or, of course, we could drivel down the path of only doing what the majority of players want and just toss out any kind of gameplay implications.

Hell, since all those miners in highsec seem to be what we balance the entire game around, why don't we remove barge ganking? Or, better yet, increase the refine rate of highsec stations to surpass nullsec, since its only fair to the greater population.


I'm trying to take a balanced view on these changes since it doesn't affect me so muchin the areas I operate. I am uncomfortable with this change as it seems geared towards making life easier for those in null at the expense of players in other areas. I always thought players wnating things to be 'easier' in EvE was scoffed at but in this case it seems not.

My impression was that EvE was balanced around the much vaunted economy and the interplay between the 'destructors' and 'Makers', not the ease in which the richest area of the game can make more ISK. Making changes that benefit one area at the expense of another is always going to be risky, doing so in such an overty anti-hisec way even moreso.

Will we see a similar change that begins to spawn high end rocks in low amount in hisec? This would be good for explorers to hunt down, lucky miners to hit the odd payday, gankers to stake out. If one area is to be made more self sufficient then all must be in some way. Make it so that being self sufficient requires effort, with effort scaling inverse linear with risk.

We'll see how this shakes out but it doesn't strike me as a fair or reasonable change to favour one area.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#445 - 2015-04-21 14:23:37 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Will we see a similar change that begins to spawn high end rocks in low amount in hisec? This would be good for explorers to hunt down, lucky miners to hit the odd payday, gankers to stake out. If one area is to be made more self sufficient then all must be in some way. Make it so that being self sufficient requires effort, with effort scaling inverse linear with risk.

This already happens -- the sites are called "wormholes."

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#446 - 2015-04-21 14:39:28 UTC
CCP Fozzie -- I had heard mention of the mining requirement for maintaining an industrial index being lowered for Sov 5.0. Is this something you're still considering, and if so, would it be for this patch, or the Sov 5.0 patch?

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#447 - 2015-04-21 14:41:53 UTC
Querns wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Will we see a similar change that begins to spawn high end rocks in low amount in hisec? This would be good for explorers to hunt down, lucky miners to hit the odd payday, gankers to stake out. If one area is to be made more self sufficient then all must be in some way. Make it so that being self sufficient requires effort, with effort scaling inverse linear with risk.

This already happens -- the sites are called "wormholes."


And that means using 2 areas and is therefore not self sufficient. My point being that if you make null more self sufficient then you should make balanced changes to make all areas self sufficient to greater or lesser degrees. I could just as easily point out to null players that for trit the best place is called 'hisec'.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#448 - 2015-04-21 14:53:33 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Querns wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Will we see a similar change that begins to spawn high end rocks in low amount in hisec? This would be good for explorers to hunt down, lucky miners to hit the odd payday, gankers to stake out. If one area is to be made more self sufficient then all must be in some way. Make it so that being self sufficient requires effort, with effort scaling inverse linear with risk.

This already happens -- the sites are called "wormholes."


And that means using 2 areas and is therefore not self sufficient. My point being that if you make null more self sufficient then you should make balanced changes to make all areas self sufficient to greater or lesser degrees. I could just as easily point out to null players that for trit the best place is called 'hisec'.

So, in order for something to count as "self-sufficient," you can't take one jump into a wormhole to get what you want? Do you think that everything required to build stuff should be available in one system?

The joke about this conversation is that highsec has never been self-sufficient for minerals, ever. The fact that highends were swirling around in a financial toilet only masked this fact. Even with 400 isk zydrine and 650 isk megacyte, those minerals, by and large, came from nullsec. This is a deliberate game design decision; one of the oldest there is.

Conversely, nullsec was never designed to be so beholden to highsec for its materiel. The fact that it currently is has come about due to emergent gameplay and the ruthless optimization by players to combat the tyranny of distance from Empire. Making nullsec more self-sufficient improves the quality of life for a significant swathe of nullsec, especially those in the south and east, whose logistics are markedly difficult (and about to get a lot worse.)

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#449 - 2015-04-21 15:02:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Ncc 1709
Fozzy im not seeing that much variance between the belts...

the figures I have in the pic are max possible refine (tier 3 minmatar, max skills, +4 implant)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/s1pd703om7e9n03/ores2.jpg?dl=0


as you can see, the variance between mineral per m3 after the small belt is almost identical for every belt.

if you were to make it so one belt provided more, the small would stay as it is.
the large would need mex to be 200%
the xl put nocxium at 20 to 30%
the xxl should have the greater highends to make it more valuable, say 8% zydrine and 4% mega.

as it is. the belt that everyone is going to mine is the small, because it has the highest % of all the lowends
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#450 - 2015-04-21 15:04:44 UTC
Ncc 1709 wrote:
Fozzy im not seeing that much variance between the belts...

the figures I have in the pic are max possible refine (tier 3 minmatar, max skills, +4 implant)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/09f8xcee00ys4ta/ores.jpg?dl=0


as you can see, the variance between mineral per m3 after the small belt is almost identical for every belt.

if you were to make it so one belt provided more, the small would stay as it is.
the large would need mex to be 200%
the xl put nocxium at 20 to 30%
the xxl should have the greater highends to make it more valuable, say 8% zydrine and 4% mega.

as it is. the belt that everyone is going to mine is the small, because it has the highest % of all the lowends

uh, that entirely depends on if the miner wants lowends or highends which largely depends on if this is successful in undoing the highend glut
Mario Putzo
#451 - 2015-04-21 15:07:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. After reading through the feedback so far we've made some tweaks to the compositions of the Anoms. Now the ratios between different minerals have more variance from anom type to anom type, so that nullsec groups will be able to take advantage of the choice of different anoms to get slightly different mineral ratios. For instance, under the new numbers the Mediums have extra Mexallon so if you find you're low on Mex you can mine out some mediums.

The OP has been updated.


Sounds good, so when are LS and HS going to be absolved of having to import from NS? I mean thats the name of the game now right self sufficiency? No more needing to import/export, no more need to take what your neighbor has and give nothing back?

I can expect to see HS and LS anoms with ABC ore in them ya? I mean, in HS I have no access to Zydrine or Megacyte...why should I have to import from NS, and not vice versa?

Pretty huge difference:

NS: We don't produce much because we DONT mine the material available to us.
LS+HS: We don't produce much because we CANT mine the material we need.

Fun fact, NS mining/production has always been more profitable than HS, people don't do it in NS, because they don't want to live in NS....these changes are not going to change anyones mindset about that. Seems really really redundant from that viewpoint...and largely hypocritical to say one region of space should be self sufficient, while others are forced into a greater dependency on that region.

HS+LS ABC anoms please.

*disclaimer
I think the changes here are great, and i am all for NS being more self sufficient, but that should also be extended to ALL areas of space, not just NS.
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#452 - 2015-04-21 15:10:12 UTC
people who say nullsec mining doesn't happen don't live in nullsec.

I updated my previous post with a better pic.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#453 - 2015-04-21 15:10:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Querns
Mario Putzo wrote:

Sounds good, so when are LS and HS going to be absolved of having to import from NS? I mean thats the name of the game now right self sufficiency? No more needing to import/export, no more need to take what your neighbor has and give nothing back?

I can expect to see HS and LS anoms with ABC ore in them ya? I mean, in HS I have no access to Zydrine or Megacyte...why should I have to import from NS, and not vice versa?

Pretty huge difference:

NS: We don't produce much because we DONT mine the material available to us.
LS+HS: We don't produce much because we CANT mine the material we need.

Fun fact, NS mining/production has always been more profitable than HS, people don't do it in NS, because they don't want to live in NS....these changes are not going to change anyones mindset about that. Seems really really redundant from that viewpoint...and largely hypocritical to say one region of space should be self sufficient, while others are forced into a greater dependency on that region.

HS+LS ABC anoms please.

You've made the fundamental mistake of thinking that Eve is fair.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Mario Putzo
#454 - 2015-04-21 15:13:53 UTC
Querns wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:

Sounds good, so when are LS and HS going to be absolved of having to import from NS? I mean thats the name of the game now right self sufficiency? No more needing to import/export, no more need to take what your neighbor has and give nothing back?

I can expect to see HS and LS anoms with ABC ore in them ya? I mean, in HS I have no access to Zydrine or Megacyte...why should I have to import from NS, and not vice versa?

Pretty huge difference:

NS: We don't produce much because we DONT mine the material available to us.
LS+HS: We don't produce much because we CANT mine the material we need.

Fun fact, NS mining/production has always been more profitable than HS, people don't do it in NS, because they don't want to live in NS....these changes are not going to change anyones mindset about that. Seems really really redundant from that viewpoint...and largely hypocritical to say one region of space should be self sufficient, while others are forced into a greater dependency on that region.

HS+LS ABC anoms please.

You've made the fundamental mistake of thinking that Eve is fair.



And yet here we are in a thread about making EVE more fair for 1 of 4 regions of space. Ironic isn't it. NS complains about lowends , CCP addresses concerns, "YAY BRAVO CCP". HS complains about lack of highend access "SHUT UP PUBBIE EVE ISNT FAIR."
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#455 - 2015-04-21 15:14:44 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Querns wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:

Sounds good, so when are LS and HS going to be absolved of having to import from NS? I mean thats the name of the game now right self sufficiency? No more needing to import/export, no more need to take what your neighbor has and give nothing back?

I can expect to see HS and LS anoms with ABC ore in them ya? I mean, in HS I have no access to Zydrine or Megacyte...why should I have to import from NS, and not vice versa?

Pretty huge difference:

NS: We don't produce much because we DONT mine the material available to us.
LS+HS: We don't produce much because we CANT mine the material we need.

Fun fact, NS mining/production has always been more profitable than HS, people don't do it in NS, because they don't want to live in NS....these changes are not going to change anyones mindset about that. Seems really really redundant from that viewpoint...and largely hypocritical to say one region of space should be self sufficient, while others are forced into a greater dependency on that region.

HS+LS ABC anoms please.

You've made the fundamental mistake of thinking that Eve is fair.



And yet here we are in a thread about making EVE more fair for 1 of 4 regions of space. Ironic isn't it. NS complains about lowends , CCP addresses concerns, "YAY BRAVO CCP". HS complains about lack of highend access "SHUT UP PUBBIE EVE ISNT FAIR."

The change doesn't make nullsec more fair, it makes nullsec more self-sufficient.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Mario Putzo
#456 - 2015-04-21 15:16:17 UTC
Querns wrote:

The change doesn't make nullsec more fair, it makes nullsec more self-sufficient.


Which is exactly what I just said they should do for HS and LS, and you said "EVE isn't fair."
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#457 - 2015-04-21 15:17:57 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Querns wrote:

The change doesn't make nullsec more fair, it makes nullsec more self-sufficient.


Which is exactly what I just said they should do for HS and LS, and you said "EVE isn't fair."

Because it isn't. The change helps nullsec the most, gives a token boost for lowsec, and does nothing to highsec. This is not fair, nor is it intended to be. Regions of space do not exist nor are supposed to exist in perfect balance. If they did, there would be no L4 missions or highsec incursions in highsec.

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
#458 - 2015-04-21 15:17:58 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. After reading through the feedback so far we've made some tweaks to the compositions of the Anoms. Now the ratios between different minerals have more variance from anom type to anom type, so that nullsec groups will be able to take advantage of the choice of different anoms to get slightly different mineral ratios. For instance, under the new numbers the Mediums have extra Mexallon so if you find you're low on Mex you can mine out some mediums.

The OP has been updated.


Sounds good, so when are LS and HS going to be absolved of having to import from NS?

when the highends that go into a battleship take an equal amount of space as trit does

"oh woe is me, my need to import a single blockade runner worth of stuff every year is the same as nullsec needing multiple jump freighters per day for the same production chain"
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#459 - 2015-04-21 15:18:23 UTC
Why should the people who work the least to get the anomaly belts get the best yields from it??

https://www.dropbox.com/s/s1pd703om7e9n03/ores2.jpg?dl=0
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#460 - 2015-04-21 15:19:27 UTC
Ncc 1709 wrote:
Why should the people who work the least to get the anomaly belts get the best yields from it??

https://www.dropbox.com/s/s1pd703om7e9n03/ores2.jpg?dl=0

what kind of idiot thinks mineral prices will stay the same given these changes?