These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Sinking minerals: is PvP what makes the EVE economy go round?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cataca
Aspiring Nomads
#61 - 2015-05-03 20:28:22 UTC
masternerdguy wrote:
Cataca wrote:

Now, as for making pve more engaging, i dont see anything wrong with that at all. But how exactly are you going to do that? Increased danger to ships? More spawns? High risk enviroment? Dynamic missions?


For a start, random missions would be nice. Freelancer / X3 had the right idea with having patterns for missions that varied each time. They would be of similar difficulty within a level, but could become unexpectedly difficult if the dice roll wrong. You shouldn't be able to just look up rooms, spawns, damage types and resists in a table and be at 0 risk in the mission.

I think burners are the right direction. Fewer spawns of more realistically fit ships. Ideally I'd like to see the massive waves of enemies in level 4s and 5s replaced by a handful of realistically fit and skilled PVP ships (with much higher bounties and better loot tables to compensate).

This also serves to give a realistic intro to PVP. Currently PVP combat and PVE combat are (mostly, maybe minus wormholes and incursions) worlds apart and assumptions that work great in one get you killed in the other.




More randomization would be a great idea and probably easy to implement as well. But what i think really needs happening is a "higher level" mission type for high SP pilots. The current floor on level 4 missions is incredibly low (a semi decent, read: adequate) gila pilot takes how long to train? Two weeks? All that perfecting skills currently does is allow for faster completion times with even fewer risk to your ship.

It just isnt healthy for a game to not have long term goals to aim for. Level 5 missions are a completely different ballpark and force players in a foreign element of gameplay (one they didnt train for), the same goes for incursions, plus, the team aspect makes your solo performance rather insignificant (thus less appealing for many players)

High skill level solo content, something like high ded rating plexes with less, better fit rats and a chance for a "awesome loot reward" in the end would probably be the most engaging and healthy for the game. Expensive faction modules dont artificially blow money into the market and remove loads of isk if you get blown up plus, the market regulates the price of those modules itself. Make the rewards and spawns scale with squad size, randomize the spawns (like, chance for a neuting boat, tracking disruptor, scram) and you have a high SP enviroment for pve players, both solo and team.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#62 - 2015-05-03 20:43:30 UTC
Fun fact on 'Random' missions.
There have been studies done on this and most MMO players actually HATE 'random' and like being able to look the guides up.

However as I've said many a time, first step in 'random' missions is dynamic NPC creation without the current 'locked' stats and unique names of every different type of NPC that can be mined from the database and cache for exact stats.
When all you get is 'Angels Cruiser' 'Stabber', and don't know if it's AC, Arty, has Neuts, Web, etc. Then you start getting a good thing rolling.

As well as slashing the number of NPC's per mission by making better ships making it easier to apply PvP tactics. When you are outnumbered 40 to 1, Ewar on 2 ships is kind of irrelevant, anything but pure tank and spank or kite and spank is irrelevant. When it's only 4 to 1, Ewar crippling 2 of them actually matters.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#63 - 2015-05-03 20:57:20 UTC
Cataca wrote:
It just isnt healthy for a game to not have long term goals to aim for. Level 5 missions are a completely different ballpark and force players in a foreign element of gameplay (one they didnt train for), the same goes for incursions, plus, the team aspect makes your solo performance rather insignificant (thus less appealing for many players)

Umm, this is a PvP-centric sandbox game where you suppose to set your own goals, not a linear theme park game where you progress through scripted content. You can play Eve how you want, but it just isn't a game where you make your way through PvE content forever. It never has been nor did the developers set out to make such a game.

There is higher level PvE content however. Incursions are obvious for a group but there is also high-end PvE content in low, null and especially WH space. Is it too much to ask players to actually leave highsec if they want to chase higher rewards? Maybe it is, but it is no secret that that was CCPs intention when they purposely left this content (L5s, higher DED sites, pirate L4s, sleeper sites, etc.) outside of highsec.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Solecist Project
#64 - 2015-05-03 21:15:41 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Fun fact on 'Random' missions.
There have been studies done on this and most MMO players actually HATE 'random' and like being able to look the guides up.
This here is EVE.

The people who want guides are the easymode players ... see some posts before.

If they hate the challenge, then they can leave for easier games.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Hengle Teron
Red Sky Morning
The Amarr Militia.
#65 - 2015-05-03 21:24:48 UTC
What does it matter what fuels the economy the most ?

Economy for it's own sake is meaningless.
Cataca
Aspiring Nomads
#66 - 2015-05-03 21:30:43 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Cataca wrote:
It just isnt healthy for a game to not have long term goals to aim for. Level 5 missions are a completely different ballpark and force players in a foreign element of gameplay (one they didnt train for), the same goes for incursions, plus, the team aspect makes your solo performance rather insignificant (thus less appealing for many players)

Umm, this is a PvP-centric sandbox game where you suppose to set your own goals, not a linear theme park game where you progress through scripted content. You can play Eve how you want, but it just isn't a game where you make your way through PvE content forever. It never has been nor did the developers set out to make such a game.

There is higher level PvE content however. Incursions are obvious for a group but there is also high-end PvE content in low, null and especially WH space. Is it too much to ask players to actually leave highsec if they want to chase higher rewards? Maybe it is, but it is no secret that that was CCPs intention when they purposely left this content (L5s, higher DED sites, pirate L4s, sleeper sites, etc.) outside of highsec.



You cant force players to do something they dont want to do (or think they dont want to do). You can tell players to go to a pvp enviroment to enjoy better pve content all day every day, but the content there is not better either. Its a much riskier enviroment and the same boring missions (plexes/sleeper sites/incursions are not much better). I dont blame anyone not doing that.

Lets face it, pve content is utter crap in eve. High risk enviroments makes it more fun and bearable for some, but for the rest that absolutely want to stay in their highsec fortress of solitude, you cant just sandbox some PvE content yourself.

PvP is Sandbox, Market is Sandbox, PvE is a content framework provided by CCP. If CCP makes better, healthier pve content that somewhat resembles a PVP enviroment, maybe some people will even switch and provide you with more pew. win/win.
And dont tell me you dont secretly wish that pve content would be somewhat better.
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#67 - 2015-05-03 21:34:17 UTC
If you are going to make a fancy, mathematical formula, you should also incorporate how many minerals shooting rats actually generates, even now with reprocessing as it is.

Much of that massive number of HP inflicted upon rats happens in null, where others have stated, drones/lasers are used heavily. Assuming one does not lose drones (rare), or has their ship exploded (also rare), each anomaly actually adds about, what, ~10m isk worth of minerals to the economy after reprocessing? Basically, even one was using a Raven or a Tengu, they would have almost certainly generated more minerals via loot than they had used to blow up the rats. Now, granted, in HS where blitzing and not looting is optimal, this doesn't fully apply, but there is an awfully lot of ratting going on in null.

Add players into that mess, and I can assure you carrier and Ishtar manufacturers have lots of steady orders due the aforementioned ships exploding, and as a result buy a lot of minerals.



Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#68 - 2015-05-03 22:13:04 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:

"Pure" PvP games have a limited lifespan as they split every new player into either a winner or a loser.


Yeah, just like Poker, that game that nobody plays anymore. Roll

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#69 - 2015-05-03 22:35:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Zappity
Otso Bakarti wrote:
Your mistake is buying into the self-spun myth of the minority PvP players that they comprise the most of EVE's player base (NOT) and therefore their activity is what drives the giant wheel of EVE. Note: This crowd is not known for their collective elevators reaching the top floor. What the actual majority does, not what PvP-ers are terrified you won't believe because then management might start making decisions that don't include them, rather than tailor the game to themselves, always drives the big wheel. Yes, the ego factors heavily into this equation. However, as in all egotistical enterprise, facts do not.

SO, it's a fabricated issue, PvP vs. PvE. There is no issue. Only mindless gankers claim miners don't do anything, while they suicidally lose another ship, buy one someone had to have made from minerals someone mined. It's like a kid who thinks the cookies are actually made by elves in a tree stump. By the way, even if you took the hours to drag out the definitive proof, they'd ignore it and babble on anyway. It's not just EVE, by the way. PvP-ers go to every game in existence and claim they're the only real players and the devs should tailor games to their desires. No one is immune.

The problems arise when supposedly educated and intelligent people fall for their line of crapola and accede to their wishes. Then the "balance the game for a handful of people" tug of war starts. The majority of players fall to the wayside of inattention. Subscriptions are cancelled. The game is distorted beyond recognition. The PvP-ers move on to do it to somebody else.

They really don't like it when you bring this up. It's not only like telling the king's mother he has no clothes, it's like telling the king, he really isn't a king, either. You know how that goes. Just remember as you wade through the back and forth, these people don't get the luxury of defining the terms. They don't get to say "it's a PvP-centric game" and that becomes a fact. They don't get to say "PvE is allowed" and that becomes a fact. But, they do say these things hoping to be taken as some sort of authority. You can tell if this tactic is working by how people frame their discussion after that, i.e. "...since it's a PvP-centric game, then...." It's propaganda. It's bogus. They have no authority to define anything. They are bullsh!tting and hoping it sticks.

We are all the masters of our own stupidity, or our own comprehension. Be swayed by whom you will. I prefer to remember some random geek on the internet who struts in text typing "PvP" every third syllable, isn't GOD.

I'll be caught up soon. Still trying to pull a fact out of this post. Taking a while...

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#70 - 2015-05-03 22:38:23 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
TL;DR: sinking minerals is key for the economy and I challenge the asumption that PvP is the main source of such destruction, then suggest a way to obtain hard data on the real weight of player activity in order to asess who plays a larger role to keep the wheels of economy turning, either PvPrs or PvErs.

Disclaimer: I am not suggesting to get rid of PvP.

I am sure you hear this a zillion times: "PvP is necessary to destroy stuff. Without destroying stuff, EVE economy would be destroyed; EVE economy is about the cycle of creation and destruction and PvP keeps that wheel turning"

Yet, is that accurate? Is PvP the only end, or the principal end of the life cycle of minerals? Or are there other ways in which minerals are deleted from the game? Maybe ways that consume more minerals, even?

Minerals in EVE are one of the key faucet-to-sink cycles. Minerals are spawned for free each day, then they are gathered and manufactured into stuff, then that stuff is destroyed and the minerals are deleted from the system, thus leaving room for more minerals to be spawned and gathered.

Yet it's easy to dismiss that ships are not the only thing being destroyed, and that PvP is not the only way in which minerals are destroyed.

See, CCP kindly provided numbers about how many HP trade players each day. It turns that players inlfict 385 million HP of damage to other players each day, and 24,000 million HP of damage are inflicted onto NPCs.

Care to think for a moment HOW is inflicted that damage?

Clue: yesterday I spent ~1,500 cruise missiles running "Dread pirate Scarlet".

And yes. Missiles (as all ammunition) are made of... minerals. You may think that's a platitude. May also think that the amount of minerals spent building ammunition is neglectable, but, is it?

Now, this point can't be developed further without some data from CCP. Maybe they don't even have the data. The numbers we need are:

- amount of minerals required to build 1 HP of player stuff (call it "construction cost of P or CP")
- amount of minerals required to build 1 HP of NPC stuff (call it "construction cost of N or CN")
- amount of minerals required to destroy 1 HP of player stuff (call it "destruction cost of P or DP")
- amount of minerals required to destroy 1 HP of NPC stuff (call it "destruction cost of N or DN")

We know that the amount of minerals needed to create 1 HP of NPC sutff is zero (CN = 0).

So the whole balance of EVE's minerals is:

(minerals spawned) - ((CP+CN)-(DP+DN)) = 0

Now, maybe most of DP (destruction of player stuff) comes from PvP (that's a guess), but without hard data, it's difficult to know what's the weight of each factor.

What we know for sure, is that CCP can easily balance DP and DN by increasing the mineral cost of destroying NPCs in case that the mineral cost of destroying players shrinked. Many ways would be open, like:

- more mineral cost for building ammo
- making expirable the currently "unlimited" ammo (T1 laser crystals, drones)
- implementing "wear and tear" so modules and ships needed repair/replacement
- buffing HP of NPCs (that would ruffle some feathers, though)

Now, I am not asking to get rid of PvP, but to check its actual weight in the economy.

But, best comes the last. Because with FozzieSov players will not be destroying structures. And those are 4,600 million HP/day that will no longer be inflicted, and that will have an impact in the (CP-DP) part of the equation. If structures are not being created nor destroyed, mineral consumption will diminish.

It will be interesting to see how that affects the mineral market. Because in case that it haves little effect, that will prove without a doubt (and for lack of better data) that destroying player sutff is not that much relevant in the life cycle of minerals and thus that it's PvE, and not PvP, what keeps the creation-destruction wheel turning.

Disclaimer: I am not suggesting to get rid of PvP. But maybe CCP should start looking at the role of PvE in the economy with different eyes... or just start looking at it AT ALL.

Bear


Posting in a "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Thread.

I'll just add to the discussion by quoting Alfred Marshall,

Quote:
We might as reasonably dispute whether it is the upper or the under blade of a pair of scissors that cuts a piece of paper, as whether value is governed by utility or cost of production. It is true that when one blade is held still, and the cutting is effected by moving the other, we may say with careless brevity that the cutting is done by the second; but the statement is not strictly accurate, and is to be excused only so long as it claims to be merely a popular and not a strictly scientific account of what happens.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#71 - 2015-05-03 22:39:35 UTC
Your reasoning and worldview are bad and you should be ashamed.
Cataca
Aspiring Nomads
#72 - 2015-05-03 22:47:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Cataca
Quote:
I'll be caught up soon. Still trying to pull a fact out of this post. Taking a while...

Dont bother, its inane rambling about how supposedly pvpers destroy the game and once they are done with eve, the'll look for other games to destroy.
Minmatar Citizen 534612187
Citizen Corp.
#73 - 2015-05-03 23:05:18 UTC
Holy ****, what's wrong with you people?

Someone makes a thread saying "I don't think PvP is as much of an economic drive as some people say it is. Here's how we can test this claim," and this is what it turns into? Isn't the average age of the EVE player like 27?

...

oh my god this is what politics must be like
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#74 - 2015-05-03 23:42:08 UTC
Minmatar Citizen 534612187 wrote:
Holy ****, what's wrong with you people?

Someone makes a thread saying "I don't think PvP is as much of an economic drive as some people say it is. Here's how we can test this claim," and this is what it turns into? Isn't the average age of the EVE player like 27?

...

oh my god this is what politics must be like


My problem is that there is alot of confounding factors. I'm sure I've contributed in past months to the amount of damage to both PvP and PvE. When I PvE, like many others, I'm a fan of the ishtar. How many minerals get destroyed there? Mmmmm...lets just go with an estimate of zero. Probably not entirely true, on occasion I've had to warp off and leave my drones. But still.

Even using a dedicated missile boat, like the OP, missiles are not nearly as mineral intensive as a ship. For example, how much damage does it take to kill a titan vs. the minerals to make one? And a side question...do doomsdays use ammo? I don't think so, but then again I've never fired one.

Did the OP stop to think about logistics? I can't tell you how many times I've been shooting at the primary just to see that he's caught reps. Are those "wasted" HP of damage in the OPs PvP damage numbers? I don't know, do you? Does the OP?

Both PvE and PvP are what help make the Eve economy go. PvE often brings in ISK (a source) and new ISK entering the economy can result in increased demand....and inflation. Yes, PvE can burn through minerals both via ammo and even the occasional ship loss. There is stuff also lost in manufacturing and even refining.

Hence my reply. Like a pair of scissors both are necessary for the Eve economy. Is one more important than the other? I see that as a chicken vs. egg argument....or to be a bit of a smart ass, "Yes!"

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#75 - 2015-05-04 00:03:45 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Yes, they sell a PvP-centric game where 62% of the subscribers don't PvP. What could be wrong with ignoring PvE and focusing on PvP alone? Roll

We've gone over all this before. Close to half of all players regularly PvP ("Professionals" and "Agressors"), and those that do stay 50% longer with the game. CCP knows where their bread is buttered and what makes this game unique and that is not the dated PvE experience.

That's not to say PvE/Industry players aren't important, just that they would be crazy to try to shift the focus of their game away from PvP for some reason you still haven't made clear to me (to poach subscribers from other games?). Not only crazy, but that would be selling out on the core principles of the game they set out to create well over 12 years ago.


LOL, now 38% is "close to half". Then 62% is "two thirds", isn't it? Lol

And you fail to get my point.

PvE is the biggest part and the worst part of EVE for no reason. CCP should make it better as soon, but also while, they can.

Then PvP still would have their awesome game, and PvE would also have an awesome game. PvE retention would be longer and thus population would be back to growth (same input with less loss=growth), which in turn would be awesome.

Can you figure EVE with 65k regularly online? 90k? 150k? I would be so damn proud to play a game that was able to outperform its glory days! Smile

But then I am not optimistic about that. CCP may outperform their glory days, if some of their new projects doesn't misfires. But EVE Online... *shakes head*


Ishtanchuk,

I have 3 accounts. 1 is my main and I PvP on that account. The other two are to basically allow me to make isk, help my main move around (cyno alts) and help out my alliance and corp doing logistics/stuff that is probably often considered PvE. I almost define the Eve population. 33% PvP, 66% don't. Yet, if they ****** up this game, they'd lose 3 accounts.

Am I unique? I don't think so. I know lots of people who PvP in null also have alts HS side who do alot of what I just described above.

As for making PvE better...well yeah. Great idea...problem is the details. For example, most notions of a mining mini-game just suck, but yet that is probably the most common suggestion for making mining better. But consider this:

A. Mining semi-AFK while streaming Netflix/Amazon Prime/working from home
B. Mining with a boring mini-game.

I don't know about anyone else, I'd go for A every damn time. Unless it is a truly amazing mini-game. And we have enough minerals coming into the game, so v0v meh.... But that being said if somebody does make a great mining mini-game, fantastic.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Dots
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#76 - 2015-05-04 00:10:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Dots
*shares a cookie with Ish*



Ish, I think there are a a couple things you are ignoring to simplify your argument (or maybe you've missed them).


First, your 4 variable equation doesn't cover all ISK production and destruction, namely:

  1. Dropped cargo is an important ISK sink contributer to PVP
  2. Dropped loot and bounties are an important ISK faucet contributer to PVE combat (the biggest in the game)



Second, let's take your example of cruise missiles and damage done to NPCs. You said you bought 1500 cruise missiles yesterday. That's about 2 million ISK you spent on these missiles.

If we look at some destruction events:

  • Jan 2014/Halloween War is 53T or 1.7T/day
  • Feb 2014 is 39.5T or 1.4T/day
  • Mar 2014/Burn Jita is 33T or 1.1T/day


If we were to make the absurd comparison of your personal ammunition cost to these destruction events, the ISK lost is 500,000x to 1,000,000x (edit: this is PER DAY. This means we would need 500,000x of capsuleers like you buying missiles per day to equal that destruction-- EVE doesn't have that many subscriptions, much less active players per day).

This multiplier should be even more exaggerated if we factor in all the PVE ISK faucets.



tl;dr. I would suggest not make this PVP to PVE to market comparison. There are too many variables you are not considering. Any casual analysis indicates that PVE sink for ammo MINUS PVE faucets does not come close to PVP hull/module destruction and drops.



Edit #2: Ish, I would say your whole argument makes very little sense because PVE is by definition profitable, which means you are putting in less ISK than you're getting out. PVP is the exact opposite (with some notable exceptions like ganking and piracy). Even ganking and piracy are never injecting ISK out of thin air into the system.

everything is better with ᵈᵒᵗˢ on it

New Player Opportunities: a gallery
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#77 - 2015-05-04 02:16:08 UTC
Dots wrote:
*shares a cookie with Ish*



Ish, I think there are a a couple things you are ignoring to simplify your argument (or maybe you've missed them).


First, your 4 variable equation doesn't cover all ISK production and destruction, namely:

  1. Dropped cargo is an important ISK sink contributer to PVP
  2. Dropped loot and bounties are an important ISK faucet contributer to PVE combat (the biggest in the game)



Second, let's take your example of cruise missiles and damage done to NPCs. You said you bought 1500 cruise missiles yesterday. That's about 2 million ISK you spent on these missiles.

If we look at some destruction events:

  • Jan 2014/Halloween War is 53T or 1.7T/day
  • Feb 2014 is 39.5T or 1.4T/day
  • Mar 2014/Burn Jita is 33T or 1.1T/day


If we were to make the absurd comparison of your personal ammunition cost to these destruction events, the ISK lost is 500,000x to 1,000,000x (edit: this is PER DAY. This means we would need 500,000x of capsuleers like you buying missiles per day to equal that destruction-- EVE doesn't have that many subscriptions, much less active players per day).

This multiplier should be even more exaggerated if we factor in all the PVE ISK faucets.



tl;dr. I would suggest not make this PVP to PVE to market comparison. There are too many variables you are not considering. Any casual analysis indicates that PVE sink for ammo MINUS PVE faucets does not come close to PVP hull/module destruction and drops.



Edit #2: Ish, I would say your whole argument makes very little sense because PVE is by definition profitable, which means you are putting in less ISK than you're getting out. PVP is the exact opposite (with some notable exceptions like ganking and piracy). Even ganking and piracy are never injecting ISK out of thin air into the system.


The OP is not discussing ISK sources/sinks, but mineral source/sinks.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Dots
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#78 - 2015-05-04 02:41:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Dots
Teckos Pech wrote:


The OP is not discussing ISK sources/sinks, but mineral source/sinks.


Mineral source/sink is an irrelevant metric. Ores respawn infinitely. One can't discuss the market without talking about flow of ISK.

Edit: Just to be clear, Ish has presented some kind of argument about mineral procurement and destruction. She hasn't demonstrated why this metric is important at all when everything she mentions can be reduced to ISK and time.

everything is better with ᵈᵒᵗˢ on it

New Player Opportunities: a gallery
Whittorical Quandary
Amarrian Infinity
#79 - 2015-05-04 03:21:54 UTC
Personally i think that making dynamic, global changes to material production vs destruction ratios like this, would make the market more erratic than it already intrinsically is, causing increasingly drastic inflation and deflation of all prices, causing market bubbles/crashes.

A market already inflates and deflates values on its own based on production/destruction (supply/demand) through the player base. Adding another level of continuous global adjustments to ratios outside of player dynamcs, imo would open a pandora's box into the market.

Global changes could push market values in one direction while player markets move the same direction to compensate for the same problem, creating an extreme glut in supply or lack of demand.

IMO would end up seeing rapid market bubbles and crashes that would eventually turn markets into chaos, if it were to be done often and repeatedly, at least.


I think overal balance is something based both on human psychology and statistical data, not just one or the other though.

///
On another note though, a good WMD or two to wipe out a large amount of resources, would boost quite a bit of production demand, muahaha *evil laugh



"The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you never know if they are genuine."

— Abraham Lincoln
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#80 - 2015-05-04 04:20:36 UTC
Dots wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:


The OP is not discussing ISK sources/sinks, but mineral source/sinks.


Mineral source/sink is an irrelevant metric. Ores respawn infinitely. One can't discuss the market without talking about flow of ISK.

Edit: Just to be clear, Ish has presented some kind of argument about mineral procurement and destruction. She hasn't demonstrated why this metric is important at all when everything she mentions can be reduced to ISK and time.


Minerals are what allow us to have shiny ships, so it is not irrelevant.

Mistaking money for the sum total of the economy is just a complete logical fallacy. Very few players really care about isk, they care about having things in game...things that invariable require minerals.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online