EVE General Discussion

Explain the nature of this 'favo(u)r". Or is this just hot air wafting across The Pond in the wrong direction for a change.....................

Yet at the same time your shooting yourself in the foot, since competition drives down prices, which means your ships, mods, and ammo would be cheaper. Ah the irony.

Tears > 2-20 mil. increase in ship costs.

You have no idea how the game actually works.

Then either explain or get out

How unexpected

I'd estimate that a quarter of my posts in the past week have been made with the explicit intent of explaining why his claim is absurd, but okay, I'll do it again.

1. People who are unwilling to fight when ships are expensive are unwilling to fight when ships are cheap. I have eight years of empirical evidence to support this: not a single time has a single other pvper I've know said "sorry guys, Hurricanes are too expensive, I'll have to sit this one out."

2. High-sec carebears account for a surprisingly small percentage of total mineral production. Of course, this data is only applicable to the point that drone alloys and meta 0 loot are removed. After that point, high-sec carebear mineral output might actually hit double-digit percentage points.

3. The grand majority of pvpers are after kill quality, not kill quantity. If ships triple in price, so will the amount of money we make from loot and ransoms. This might surprise you, but when we play EVE, we're not looking for a deathmatch experience. What this means is that our profits will remain consistent, bringing us to point number four...

4. You have sharks swimming in the salmon pool. While the pvp dynamics between pvpers will remain similar, the carebears will now be taking bigger hits. We're better at pvp than carebears. With this in mind, we'll hit them all the harder, since doing so will result in even more money. This ultimately fits into the next point, and concerns a bunch of economic concepts you might or might not be familiar with, such as equilibrium points.

5. The supply/demand relationship ultimately rules over everything. The more expensive minerals become, the more profitable mining will be compared to other activities. Right now, if I need money, and am relegated to pve activities, I go into a wormhole and draw at least 150 million an hour, solo. The more profitable mining becomes, the more people will brave the risk to reap the increased rewards. While I doubt mining will ever reach wormhole/pre-nerf incursion levels of profitability, if it did, then I'd have no qualms doing it myself. Money is money.

Then stop being Frank.

The Win is indeed that favo(u)r above. My Wallet can't argue with that.

My Alliance Leader misses the 500 BS Fleets in Null back 'then', for whatever it's worth.

Sounds fun(ner) to me than Caps and Super-Blaps.

This is false but granted that maybe up to personal experience. People would be more willing to fly a frigate then a T2 cruiser in PVP. Why? Because its cheaper. Hence cost does in fact effect peoples risk aversion Look at RvB as a prime example, people flock to it because its combat in cheap ships.



This is true between the time that drone alloys was added in as well as L4s and low meta refinement as you stated. However since both those have been removed low end minerals primarily come from high-sec miners.



In most cases people will kill whatever they can find. In the end people generally only care about padding their KB stats, quality is nice but quantity makes people feel more important.