These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Resource Scarcity in EVE Online - Can It Be Done?

Author
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#21 - 2012-01-14 10:25:23 UTC
Halcyon Ingenium wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
If you don't think minerals and other resources in Eve are currently limited, you don't understand that time has value and the time of players has limits.


No we understand this just fine, what we are arguing is that time as a limiting factor isn't enough.


Time is the limiting factor in destruction. Are you arguing that there should be a limit on the ships destroyed?

Limiting resources penalizes new players, concentrates the resources in places that are hard to reach, and will eventually kill the game.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Halcyon Ingenium
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#22 - 2012-01-14 10:34:26 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Halcyon Ingenium wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

Food: Grow a sustainable yield every year for infinite years = infinite food


Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, oh geez. Roll




Read the thread leading to it, and you'll see that I was pointing out the fact that food is limited by time and effort.



Your still not catching what is funny, which underlines my point that you don't know what your talking about.

Quote:
Time is the limiting factor in destruction. Are you arguing that there should be a limit on the ships destroyed?


No, because time alone in this completely unrelated (or at best very tenuously related) case of an activity is sufficient.

By the way, since we're already talking, do you want to buy a rifter? I've got the cheapest rifters in Metropolis. If you can find a cheaper rifter, buy it!

Valei Khurelem
#23 - 2012-01-14 10:41:15 UTC
Why is it that people like you claim to know everything, post one line and then explain nothing thinking that you automatically win at everything just for doing so?

"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP."   - CCP Ytterbium

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#24 - 2012-01-14 10:53:39 UTC
Most important argument against the Idea, is that CCP tried it. It did not work well. So they scrapped it.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Kha'Vorn
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2012-01-14 10:55:57 UTC
Sir, this is a outstanding idea.

I dont think it should ever be to true depletion though. For instance, everyone and his dogs goes hell for leather to get Guristas. Eventually the faction withers. People move on to angels. Guristas slowly build their little zone of influence back up.

This idea would cause more movement, of the playerbase, and a much much more dynamic universe.
Deviana Sevidon
Jades Falcon Guards
#26 - 2012-01-14 11:03:57 UTC
Ressource scarcity is already existing in EVE, for example Technetium and other rare moon goo.

In a practial sense they only work as a bottleneck in production and gives anyone controlling these bottlenecks more wealth and power then it is a good thing for PvP and balance.

Right now a small handful of alliances control these ressources, other alliances without access to these ressources have no chance in beating them.

....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced.

Halcyon Ingenium
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#27 - 2012-01-14 11:06:32 UTC
Valei Khurelem wrote:
Why is it that people like you claim to know everything, post one line and then explain nothing thinking that you automatically win at everything just for doing so?


Mostly because winning isn't the point. And I don't recall claiming omniscience, I do however know enough of agriculture to know that time and effort are not the only limiting factors keeping mankind from infinite food, which makes an argument based on the contrary condition, suggesting that time and effort are the only limiting factors that are needed in resource acquisition incorrect; regardless of how sound the logic is, the premise by negative comparison is incorrect and so the argument doesn't stand.

The reason I don't explain simple things like this is because if you engage me as an equal or would be superior, then I shouldn't have to explain basic **** to you then, should I? No, I shouldn't be expected to get you up to speed, that's your watch. Which means I am perfectly within my right by any reckoning to laugh at ridiculous **** I read.

By the way, since we're already talking, do you want to buy a rifter? I've got the cheapest rifters in Metropolis. If you can find a cheaper rifter, buy it!

Defecanda
Ice Mining Boys
#28 - 2012-01-14 11:07:04 UTC
Step 1: Re-roll technetium moons
Step 2: Watch the fun.

[i][b]CCP Zulu.....      Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. [/b](i like to steal sigs)[/i]

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#29 - 2012-01-14 11:10:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Moon goo is limited by the fixed production capped by their limited number.

Minerals are limited by asteroids despawning. Not ice though (ice roids deplete at a very tiny rate but ice belts are so few a single alliance can cripple their production)

PI commodities are limited by planets depletion rate


Furthermore there's the little detail that this is a game.

When minerals used to take days to respawn, players complained that it was unfair to certain time zones to always find everything stripped off just becase the respawn happened at Europe friendly hours (at downtime).


What if the sought after moon goo was only available when YOU are not online to take it?

It'd be realistic after all, because in RL those who arrive late at grabbing something are just screwed and that's it. Would it be subscription pay-worthy to those left out?


Finally, there are not "too many minerals" or "too high / too low prices". There's just a number (price) approximately relating the amount of resources vs those who want them.

Who sets the bar? Make it easy to farm Titans? Go back when buying a battleship was a major accomplishment?
What about PLEX? You can make the game hostile to anyone except rich babies whose father's credit card is fat enough after all.

Eve is more complex than a "reduce / cap resources" operation can achieve.
"Too many mining bots?"

Nope, bots numbers are balanced against non bots and against the many major minerals faucets.

Reduce bots (good thing) and you will just see more "real player" miners fill their niche till prices crash again to balance mining worthiness vs other professions requiring non afk play.

A more relevant post would be "make mining non afk-able (and not bottable of course)". But then you'd lose all those subscriptions used to mine while AFK (the majority).

EvE is more complex to change than one liners show.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#30 - 2012-01-14 11:14:39 UTC
Halcyon Ingenium wrote:
Valei Khurelem wrote:
Why is it that people like you claim to know everything, post one line and then explain nothing thinking that you automatically win at everything just for doing so?


Mostly because winning isn't the point. And I don't recall claiming omniscience, I do however know enough of agriculture to know that time and effort are not the only limiting factors keeping mankind from infinite food, which makes an argument based on the contrary condition, suggesting that time and effort are the only limiting factors that are needed in resource acquisition incorrect; regardless of how sound the logic is, the premise by negative comparison is incorrect and so the argument doesn't stand.


The reason that time+effort are not the path to infinite food for mankind s that humans consume food at a certain rate, also in the real world, there is no such thing as infinite time and effort. Thus, when the limits of time+effort are reached (for a given price), but the limit of consumption is not, food becomes scarce(for said given price). When the limits of time+effort are reached (for any price), but the limit of consumption is not, food becomes scarce(for any price) and you get famine.

I said sustainable yield farm+infinite time=infinite food production. You misunderstood me to mean infinite food production *Rate*

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Drew Solaert
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2012-01-14 11:25:55 UTC
Its a novel idea I'll give you that, but ultimately not one I can agree with.

I lied :o

Halcyon Ingenium
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#32 - 2012-01-14 11:38:12 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Halcyon Ingenium wrote:
Valei Khurelem wrote:
Why is it that people like you claim to know everything, post one line and then explain nothing thinking that you automatically win at everything just for doing so?


Mostly because winning isn't the point. And I don't recall claiming omniscience, I do however know enough of agriculture to know that time and effort are not the only limiting factors keeping mankind from infinite food, which makes an argument based on the contrary condition, suggesting that time and effort are the only limiting factors that are needed in resource acquisition incorrect; regardless of how sound the logic is, the premise by negative comparison is incorrect and so the argument doesn't stand.


The reason that time+effort are not the path to infinite food for mankind s that humans consume food at a certain rate, also in the real world, there is no such thing as infinite time and effort. Thus, when the limits of time+effort are reached (for a given price), but the limit of consumption is not, food becomes scarce(for said given price). When the limits of time+effort are reached (for any price), but the limit of consumption is not, food becomes scarce(for any price) and you get famine.

I said sustainable yield farm+infinite time=infinite food production. You misunderstood me to mean infinite food production *Rate*


No I didn't misunderstand you, there is no such thing as a sustainable yield farm. Every farm craps out occasionally. We see this less with modern technology, but it still happens. Other factors can also contribute to crop failure. The Cavendish is in danger due to the fact that it is a seedless mutant that is not genetically diverse enough to fight off disease. No amount of effort may be able to save it, barring a ingenious technological solution. So, I still think that your premise is incorrect, unless you wish to postulate that these variables in production be set to an ideal constant, which further divorces your example from relevancy to your argument. I do think it would lend credence to the opposite position, the one I hold, so I'd be willing to accept it if you did.

By the way, since we're already talking, do you want to buy a rifter? I've got the cheapest rifters in Metropolis. If you can find a cheaper rifter, buy it!

papamike
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2012-01-14 11:47:41 UTC
People are treating this as an on/off switch which I dont think was the intention of the original post.

Of course, a corresponding solution would be to soften the restrictions to pvping in hi-sec, which would increase the amount of resources used/ destroyed. As someone pointed out however, the more established players would be far better able to cope with these changes and as such, ccp will not do it.

What I personally would like to see would be a system where resource rates were toned down immensely, particularly moon goo and other t2 related products- lets say something as drastic as an eventual price increase of t2 products to 200% their current value. Established players would be able to afford the products, but t1 variants become cheaper viable options. Currently, any T1 below meta 4 or ships below Battlecruisers are all but useless in pvp (sure the blackbird or whathaveyou could be the exception to the rule).

If the majority of ships fleeted in fleet engagements were T1 in composition, where loosing a t2 ship was a huge loss and hi sec rewards were lowered or made scarcer to entice hi-sec pvp, then Eve would become alot more interesting. Also remove local :)

Of course, people could become alot more risk adverse and instead just refuse to pvp as much.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#34 - 2012-01-14 11:51:02 UTC
Halcyon Ingenium wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Halcyon Ingenium wrote:
Valei Khurelem wrote:
Why is it that people like you claim to know everything, post one line and then explain nothing thinking that you automatically win at everything just for doing so?


Mostly because winning isn't the point. And I don't recall claiming omniscience, I do however know enough of agriculture to know that time and effort are not the only limiting factors keeping mankind from infinite food, which makes an argument based on the contrary condition, suggesting that time and effort are the only limiting factors that are needed in resource acquisition incorrect; regardless of how sound the logic is, the premise by negative comparison is incorrect and so the argument doesn't stand.


The reason that time+effort are not the path to infinite food for mankind s that humans consume food at a certain rate, also in the real world, there is no such thing as infinite time and effort. Thus, when the limits of time+effort are reached (for a given price), but the limit of consumption is not, food becomes scarce(for said given price). When the limits of time+effort are reached (for any price), but the limit of consumption is not, food becomes scarce(for any price) and you get famine.

I said sustainable yield farm+infinite time=infinite food production. You misunderstood me to mean infinite food production *Rate*


No I didn't misunderstand you, there is no such thing as a sustainable yield farm. Every farm craps out occasionally. We see this less with modern technology, but it still happens. Other factors can also contribute to crop failure. The Cavendish is in danger due to the fact that it is a seedless mutant that is not genetically diverse enough to fight off disease. No amount of effort may be able to save it, barring a ingenious technological solution. So, I still think that your premise is incorrect, unless you wish to postulate that these variables in production be set to an ideal constant, which further divorces your example from relevancy to your argument. I do think it would lend credence to the opposite position, the one I hold, so I'd be willing to accept it if you did.


Ok, it craps out occasionally. But X*(Infinity-Y)=(Infinity) for any X>0, and Y!=Infinity (Y is the years it craps out). Yes, eventually the heat death of the universe craps out my farm for good, but not until. The human brain has a hard time with the concept of infinity (I have difficulty accepting that .999repeating actually equals 1). But we're getting bogged down in specifics.


My point was that there is currently no fixed limit to the minerals produced in EvE. There is also no fixed limit to the minerals destroyed in EvE. You're suggestion would implement a Fixed limit to the minerals produced in EvE, while leaving the lack of a fixed limit to minerals being destroyed.

The result of that suggestion would be a massive surge in real prices (adjusted for the crushing deflation your idea would also bring), leading people to spend hours saving to buy a rifter, until eventually, there would be no more industry, and players would sit around shooting each other in noobships. Rigs would be dirt cheap until we ran out of salvagers.

The real world economy works with finite resources because those finite resources can be recycled after the product they're used in. If you want to look at the future of the limited resources EvE you're describing, look up Peak Oil.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

ASadOldGit
School of Applied Knowledge
#35 - 2012-01-14 11:51:23 UTC  |  Edited by: ASadOldGit
RubyPorto wrote:
...
Limiting resources penalizes new players, concentrates the resources in places that are hard to reach, and will eventually kill the game.

Why do you say "concentrates the resources"? What if resources (whether moongoo, rocks or ice) were just widely (not necessarily evenly) spread around the place, so there were lots of small areas to fight over, rather than over a few very valuable areas, as it is now?

This signature intentionally left blank for you to fill in at your leisure.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#36 - 2012-01-14 12:03:00 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
When minerals used to take days to respawn, players complained that it was unfair to certain time zones to always find everything stripped off just becase the respawn happened at Europe friendly hours (at downtime).
…which was a particularly hilarious and bone-headed complaint since the downtime respawns were anything but EU-friendly. Lol
Halcyon Ingenium
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#37 - 2012-01-14 12:04:33 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:


My point was that there is currently no fixed limit to the minerals produced in EvE. There is also no fixed limit to the minerals destroyed in EvE. You're suggestion would implement a Fixed limit to the minerals produced in EvE, while leaving the lack of a fixed limit to minerals being destroyed.


No I would prefer the diminished returns with a floor on the degree diminished, as per suggestion 1. Still unlimited, but only if you move around. I think this would make mining more interesting and make territory worth controlling beyond what technetium moon is in system. I don't think doing this would grind the economy to a halt, it might not even slow it down.

RubyPorto wrote:
The real world economy works with finite resources because those finite resources can be recycled after the product they're used in. If you want to look at the future of the limited resources EvE you're describing, look up Peak Oil.


Right, because every time I ever reprocessed a rifter, I got nothing back. All minerals are irrevocably consumed in manufacturing.

By the way, since we're already talking, do you want to buy a rifter? I've got the cheapest rifters in Metropolis. If you can find a cheaper rifter, buy it!

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#38 - 2012-01-14 13:21:51 UTC
Halcyon Ingenium wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


My point was that there is currently no fixed limit to the minerals produced in EvE. There is also no fixed limit to the minerals destroyed in EvE. You're suggestion would implement a Fixed limit to the minerals produced in EvE, while leaving the lack of a fixed limit to minerals being destroyed.


No I would prefer the diminished returns with a floor on the degree diminished, as per suggestion 1. Still unlimited, but only if you move around. I think this would make mining more interesting and make territory worth controlling beyond what technetium moon is in system. I don't think doing this would grind the economy to a halt, it might not even slow it down.

RubyPorto wrote:
The real world economy works with finite resources because those finite resources can be recycled after the product they're used in. If you want to look at the future of the limited resources EvE you're describing, look up Peak Oil.


Right, because every time I ever reprocessed a rifter, I got nothing back. All minerals are irrevocably consumed in manufacturing.


Ok, if you have minerals spawn where nobody's mining them, then say goodbye to Hisec Mining. Remember, some 80% of players live in Hisec, and Miners and Missioners are over-represented there. So you're suggesting a Massive nerf to hisec income, and locking out any new player who wants to mine, but doesn't have the contacts to do so in Low/Null.

As for Tech, a good 75% of Nullsec has no Tech, and we still fight plenty. Moving tech would simply lead to more moon scanning (*shudder*) and the steamrolling of anyone unlucky enough to get Tech spawning under their POS.


If your Rifter is in a form that is reprocessable, you haven't used it yet. I can get Iron out of a sunken battleship if Iron's scarce. I can't get Trit out of a Rifter wreck if Trit is scarce.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#39 - 2012-01-14 13:30:34 UTC
ASadOldGit wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
...
Limiting resources penalizes new players, concentrates the resources in places that are hard to reach, and will eventually kill the game.

Why do you say "concentrates the resources"? What if resources (whether moongoo, rocks or ice) were just widely (not necessarily evenly) spread around the place, so there were lots of small areas to fight over, rather than over a few very valuable areas, as it is now?


Before the dominance of Tech (whose value was introduced by a CCP screwup well after moons were seeded), the R64s were the moons people fought over. And they are spread fairly evenly over the map. So much so that a small alliance had a decent chance of wrangling one out of the hands of an established alliance. And then doing it again, and again, until that small alliance had a good income and could start taking systems. This also taught that alliance how to deal with POS warfare (essential at the time, due to Sov's being based on POSes).

As for Asteroids, nobody mines in Null, let alone fights over the places to mine. Heck, nobody directly fights over Sec status systems. If your alliance needs more space, you fight to expand it (regardless of the sec). Stations are the most important bits to fight over in that expansion.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Halcyon Ingenium
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#40 - 2012-01-14 13:48:31 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Halcyon Ingenium wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


My point was that there is currently no fixed limit to the minerals produced in EvE. There is also no fixed limit to the minerals destroyed in EvE. You're suggestion would implement a Fixed limit to the minerals produced in EvE, while leaving the lack of a fixed limit to minerals being destroyed.


No I would prefer the diminished returns with a floor on the degree diminished, as per suggestion 1. Still unlimited, but only if you move around. I think this would make mining more interesting and make territory worth controlling beyond what technetium moon is in system. I don't think doing this would grind the economy to a halt, it might not even slow it down.

RubyPorto wrote:
The real world economy works with finite resources because those finite resources can be recycled after the product they're used in. If you want to look at the future of the limited resources EvE you're describing, look up Peak Oil.


Right, because every time I ever reprocessed a rifter, I got nothing back. All minerals are irrevocably consumed in manufacturing.


Ok, if you have minerals spawn where nobody's mining them, then say goodbye to Hisec Mining. Remember, some 80% of players live in Hisec, and Miners and Missioners are over-represented there. So you're suggesting a Massive nerf to hisec income, and locking out any new player who wants to mine, but doesn't have the contacts to do so in Low/Null.

As for Tech, a good 75% of Nullsec has no Tech, and we still fight plenty. Moving tech would simply lead to more moon scanning (*shudder*) and the steamrolling of anyone unlucky enough to get Tech spawning under their POS.


If your Rifter is in a form that is reprocessable, you haven't used it yet. I can get Iron out of a sunken battleship if Iron's scarce. I can't get Trit out of a Rifter wreck if Trit is scarce.


Your analogy is still flawed; I would have to accept that 100% of ships and modules manufactured will be destroyed, this is not the case. And you are still arguing against an infinite progression of diminished returns, which is not what I am asserting, making your counter argument a straw-man.

By the way, since we're already talking, do you want to buy a rifter? I've got the cheapest rifters in Metropolis. If you can find a cheaper rifter, buy it!