These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A "Ganker's" View on Mining "Buffs"

Author
Jinton Mare
Electric Monk inc
#21 - 2012-09-23 22:21:48 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Jinton Mare wrote:
Nice post, But try replacing 'Deer' with say 'Passenger Pigeon' and the flaws in your argument will become clear.

In the real world your argument, look at fishermen, is oft used to justify over exploitation.

Six billion people don't play Eve. The triceratops is extinct. Stuff happens.


WTF? Jeez make you could at least try to defend your argument....

sorry just read your sig - nothing to see carry on.
Cpt Gobla
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#22 - 2012-09-23 22:22:08 UTC
Your argument falls quite flat on it's face when you consider that EvE has more than enough resources to sustain several times it's mining population. And that supply and demand of the resources is regulated through a free market system.

With many wild animals their populations are already limited because there aren't enough resources to sustain a population growth. Hunting licenses are actively given out to hunt animals whose populations would otherwise deplete said resources. Not to mention that those resources are in no way or form regulated though a free market system.

It's a cute metaphor that I'm certain makes you feel very valuable and grand in your role as ganker, the mighty hunter in the jungle protecting those poor miners from themselves. But that's really all it is, a fantasy to make yourself feel good.

Because the thing is that, due to EvE's setup, large parts of the system are self-regulating. Miner profits may have gone down but miner costs, through replacing ganked ships, have also gone down. And should miner profits drop below a certain level then you'll see miners turning to other professions instead. Because unlike deer which can't suddenly start eating meat miners can switch to mission-running, WH-life, FW, ratting etc.

The whole thing will balance itself out. With, or without, gankers there.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#23 - 2012-09-23 22:23:26 UTC
Aurelius Valentius wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:

I'm glad you brought this up, because I have a very valid counterpoint or two.

First of all, deer are also producers. They produce fertilizer as well as mineral supplements in the form of antlers for squirrels and other small animals to gnaw on for a boost. They also facilitate the survival of other species which use them for cues, such as wild turkeys. They don't just stand around inertly, and they're not stupid. And it's not an insult to be a gatherer.

Left unchecked, it is a fact that prices will continue to plummet as more and more people take the path of least resistance. This is not a hypothesis, this is statistical fact. A prior poster posited that pixels do not propagate, but they do. When new players sign up and see easy low-risk ISk in low-training requirement mining, what do you think they might do?

As a part-time ganker I helped discourage the trend of loners trying to make it on their own. I didn't do much damage per se, but I contributed to keeping reward values high for the miners who managed to succeed.

Can you see these points or not?


Over simplistic clap-trap... if that where the case... I guess all of eve is fertilizer... or is it just your argument perhaps?

The point is this:
1. Gankers had overly cheap ships due to excess of minerals not from ore... a thing which made no since and which was changed, and now the proliferation is the change to mining due to a healthy demand for the supply... there is isk in it again, and so people that produce and want to work for the reward are working for the reward.

2. Your system of economy "lulz-ganking" was SO broken it required a bail-out from the Goons to keep it going, when that failed created a game breaking issue of no mining, no reprocessing, no making, hyper-inflation of everything, and universe market destuction...

...something like the barbarians turning what was once the roman empire and pax roma into one large farm yard dotted with ruins... CCP basically saw the end results and decided to make it more balanced... we still mine unarmed, with drones as the only possible defence in ships that are lulz in combat every day all over EVE... and your saying it's not fair to the people with throw away ships with hoards of guns and such on them that can simply blow up a miner with not much issue... is just well absurd.

If you want to gank, make a corporation, file a war dec on mining corps and go hunting... what's the issue? then you don't even have to deal with CONCORD... completely bi-passed... or is the though that the same ganked "deer" might re-ship and actually give you some risk in game too much for you?

Sir, if you want to simply lulz-gamer... EVE isn't your game... a REAL suicide ganker would drop a few plex, ship up, build three alts, and go out and gank... what you are complaining about is a sub-sidized gank... you don't want the bill after you have been a gultten at the table... well no more free lunch... you have to pay for them KMs just like real PvPers do...


I make so much ISK i didn't need the Goons' money, bless their souls for offering it.

For that matter I didn't need to PLEX up either. I guess that's the point you fail to realize.

I ganked in SMARTBOMB BATTLESHIPS.

Do you get me now?

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#24 - 2012-09-23 22:26:34 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Jax Bederen wrote:
Why not skip all the hunter BS and say plainly that mining accounts closed before got reactivated..Otherwise I doubt everyone is going to start mining just because there is a smaller chance of blowing up, or that pixels are actually going to have offspring.

More players are mining because they are less likely to get blown up and mine just as much as they used to.

Until prices respond unfavorably, they'd be fools not to, given the platforms they've now got at their disposal.




You can always gank them, just use more ships and guns to do it.

brb

Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#25 - 2012-09-23 22:31:00 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Jax Bederen wrote:
Why not skip all the hunter BS and say plainly that mining accounts closed before got reactivated..Otherwise I doubt everyone is going to start mining just because there is a smaller chance of blowing up, or that pixels are actually going to have offspring.

More players are mining because they are less likely to get blown up and mine just as much as they used to.

Until prices respond unfavorably, they'd be fools not to, given the platforms they've now got at their disposal.




You can always gank them, just use more ships and guns to do it.

That's not in dispute.

Not in any way. In fact, I can assure you I will.

What I'm disputing is the role of negative pressure in mining.

To say it isn't there based on the "extra" minerals that aren't mined makes no sense - if that were so why did the drone regions make such an impact on mineral prices? That ore existed elsewhere and could have been harvested by those means as well, am I not mistaken?

While I enjoy being insulted by people who think I'm trying to "glorify my role" in Eve, I'm genuinely also interested in whether or not negative pressure applies to mining. I'd be interested to see real arguments that this isn't true beyond what's been presented, which is "not much."

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
#26 - 2012-09-23 22:49:30 UTC
Natural selection was at work:
Miners were getting better at their trade, learning to tank, cooperating and adapting to ganking tactics.
Stupid sheep were dying off.

But then CCP decided to dump a huge truckload of 'stupid miner food' into the playpen.
And now they are multiplying, and getting dumber.
Good job CCP way to reward bad play.
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#27 - 2012-09-23 23:00:30 UTC
Bart Starr wrote:
Natural selection was at work:
Miners were getting better at their trade, learning to tank, cooperating and adapting to ganking tactics.
Stupid sheep were dying off.

But then CCP decided to dump a huge truckload of 'stupid miner food' into the playpen.
And now they are multiplying, and getting dumber.
Good job CCP way to reward bad play.

You are an angry young man with a big chip on your shoulder.

I am fascinated about talk of hunter-gatherer, herd mentality, negative pressure yadda ya.

Are people aware that most miners don't even care what you do or what you say?

That people, is why they are miners and not self-proclaimed bad boys playing at street-corner thugs because they were bullied at school.

Does ganking a miner even need a reason? Does it even need to be justified?

If it's fun, then just say it is fun and have done with it.



"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."

Aurelius Valentius
Valentius Corporation
#28 - 2012-09-23 23:16:19 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:


I make so much ISK i didn't need the Goons' money, bless their souls for offering it.

For that matter I didn't need to PLEX up either. I guess that's the point you fail to realize.

I ganked in SMARTBOMB BATTLESHIPS.

Do you get me now?


Nope it sounds then like you have neither a sound argument or a sound reason to even post... so it must simply be a troll post then of complaint about a lack of cheap KB padding...

I would be more impressed if you out fitted an exhumer wit T2 and factional stuff and went out looking to take on a smart-bombing BS, that sir would impress me... short of that... I feel you post is full of weak-sauce.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#29 - 2012-09-23 23:21:24 UTC
Aurelius Valentius wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:


I make so much ISK i didn't need the Goons' money, bless their souls for offering it.

For that matter I didn't need to PLEX up either. I guess that's the point you fail to realize.

I ganked in SMARTBOMB BATTLESHIPS.

Do you get me now?


Nope it sounds then like you have neither a sound argument or a sound reason to even post... so it must simply be a troll post then of complaint about a lack of cheap KB padding...

I would be more impressed if you out fitted an exhumer wit T2 and factional stuff and went out looking to take on a smart-bombing BS, that sir would impress me... short of that... I feel you post is full of weak-sauce.

Wait. You think I'm trolling because of the ships I flew? That's absurd!

Let's be frank. I'm discussing negative pressure, not whining about anything. Cheaper mats mean cheaper boats. More miners makes smartbombing more desirable. This isn't a bad situation, not by a long shot. I have access to numbers for ops like this, so it's gravy to me.

In honesty, I'm thinking about the health and reputation of Eve, and I'm asking a legitimate question about the response of Eve's mining system to pressures of the bloating of its own participant population.

People who were subsidized probably won't be able to gank anymore. Only people with stupid ISK to throw at an afternoon's entertainment are going to be ganking. Nothing about that really bothers my playstyle.

It might have some detrimental effects to high-sec mining though, particularly mid-low end ores and minerals.

Time will tell. I guess it's clear what you think it will say.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Aurelius Valentius
Valentius Corporation
#30 - 2012-09-23 23:50:10 UTC
I can see your the kind of person that thinks something like arson isn't a crime it's just lulz fun.. until it happens to you as the victim of it... then it's all Evil

Arson[1] is the crime of intentionally and maliciously setting fire to buildings, wildland areas,[2] cars[3][4] or other property with the intent to cause damage.

Arson has four elements.

The elements are:
1.The malicious
2.burning
3.of the dwelling
4.of another

The malicious – for purposes of common law arson "malicious" means action creating a great risk of a burning. It is not required that the defendant acted intentionally or willfully for the purpose of burning a dwelling.

burning – at common law charring to any part of dwelling was sufficient to satisfy this element. No significant amount of damage to the dwelling was required. On the other hand mere discoloration from smoke was insufficient. Actual damage to the material from which the structure was built is required.[6] Damage to surface coverings such as carpets and wallpaper is insufficient.[6] Arson was not limited to the burning of wooden structures. Any injury or damage to the structure caused by exposure to heat or flame is sufficient.

of the dwelling – dwelling means a place of residence. The destruction of an unoccupied building was not considered as arson, "[s]ince arson protected habitation, the burning of an unoccupied house did not constitute arson." At common law a structure did not become a residence until the first occupants had moved in and ceased to be a dwelling if the occupants abandoned the premises with no intention of resuming their residency.[7] Dwelling includes structures and outbuildings within the curtilage.[8] Dwellings were not limited to houses. A barn could be the subject of arson if it was occupied as a dwelling.

of another – burning one's own dwelling does not constitute common law arson. However, for purposes of common law arson possession or occupancy rather than title determines whose dwelling the structure is.[8] Thus a tenant who sets fire to his rented house would not be guilty of common law arson,[8] while the landlord who set fire to a rented dwelling house would be guilty.

Furthermore, "[t]he burning of one's own dwelling to collect insurance did not constitute common law arson. It was generally assumed in early England that one had the legal right to destroy his own property in any manner he chose."[9]

Now try to build a justification for this activity as "lulz-fun' and that will pass a court of law and you might have a justifiable reason for it not being treated as such in EVE... basically your the "devil's night" group that gives everyone a pain in the butt feeling even other pvp'ers which scorn you activities as a bastardization of there legitimate kill records and activities on the boards...

My beef is really the KB scores...to many people use this as a quick fix to pad the boards... it was a pain in the ass and cluttered up the servers, was basically exploited and finally ended in a way that improved the game... everyone, minus the gankers has seen this as a plus... you had your day in the sun... now try another career...
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#31 - 2012-09-24 00:28:45 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:



Does ganking a miner even need a reason? Does it even need to be justified?

If it's fun, then just say it is fun and have done with it.





Well it used to be rather good money but now that the isk is gone there no point in going after the badly tanked miners which is why we now have fleets of untanked bot barges in lonetrek. And as everyone knows, mass botting only leads to bad prices on the markets.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#32 - 2012-09-24 00:45:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
:obligatory popcorn:


bzzzzzzzt "the asteroid is depleted" F1, turns page. Semi afk mining does take some effort P took me a while to make those bookmarks that mean I can hit a whole belt from 2 or 3 points.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#33 - 2012-09-24 00:53:31 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:



Does ganking a miner even need a reason? Does it even need to be justified?

If it's fun, then just say it is fun and have done with it.





Well it used to be rather good money but now that the isk is gone there no point in going after the badly tanked miners which is why we now have fleets of untanked bot barges in lonetrek. And as everyone knows, mass botting only leads to bad prices on the markets.

And if the prices go low enough miners will either have to accept it or get off their fatasses and do something about it. (reporting, ganking whatever)

Most of what occurs in Eve is self-levelling.

Minerals get cheaper, ganking (or any PvP for that matter) gets cheaper, more of it happens and prices go back up. A beautiful thing imho.

I really think we worry to much about trying to inject regulation or whines about game play styles to get things changed when in reality, they'll change themselves given enough time.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."

Karn Dulake
Doomheim
#34 - 2012-09-24 00:54:35 UTC
Nice post but can i posit an alternative


There is plenty of Ore that does not get mined out and there are vast swathes of systems whose Ore remains untouched on a daily basis.

The problem is that only a finite amount of minerals will be required by builders per day and if there is more than that available then the price will go down and everything else further up the chain.


This is good for everyone but miners as ship prices decrease and so does the price of plex.

So if you are a mission runner/bear/ganker then you win at the cost of the miner.



If CCP left a tenth of the tank of a mining barge from prebuff levels then this would be a miners game and only the very best adaptive miners would make a fortune in distant unexplored regions of the game and all of the rest of us would pay through the nose for our goods.


I dont normally troll, but when i do i do it on General Discussion.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#35 - 2012-09-24 00:55:53 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
Most of what occurs in Eve is self-levelling.

Minerals get cheaper, ganking (or any PvP for that matter) gets cheaper, more of it happens and prices go back up. A beautiful thing imho.

I really think we worry to much about trying to inject regulation or whines about game play styles to get things changed when in reality, they'll change themselves given enough time.

Or better yet:

Minerals get cheaper, ganking (or any PvP for that matter) gets cheaper, more of it happens and [barges get buffed] or [ganking gets nerfed], because ganking was never intended to be profitable.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#36 - 2012-09-24 00:57:03 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Touval Lysander wrote:

And if the prices go low enough miners will either have to accept it or get off their fatasses and do something about it. (reporting, ganking whatever)

Most of what occurs in Eve is self-levelling.

Minerals get cheaper, ganking (or any PvP for that matter) gets cheaper, more of it happens and prices go back up. A beautiful thing imho.

I really think we worry to much about trying to inject regulation or whines about game play styles to get things changed when in reality, they'll change themselves given enough time.


Problem here is miners whined and CCP changed the game for them. They didn't adapt or change tactics themselves. Thanks to this short sightedness miners are going to suffer a loss of income, just when things were looking good.
PI Maker
Doomheim
#37 - 2012-09-24 02:37:38 UTC
why don't the 6k of you could create destroyer alts and just kill every thing in high sec. little schools of piranhas devouring the miners. aren't you guys the super villains in this particular universe? i'm terribly disappointed that you're down to forum posts. entertain me mr. player content!
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#38 - 2012-09-24 03:17:19 UTC
Aurelius Valentius wrote:
I can see your the kind of person that thinks something like arson isn't a crime it's just lulz fun.. until it happens to you as the victim of it... then it's all Evil

Arson[1] is the crime of intentionally and maliciously setting fire to buildings, wildland areas,[2] cars[3][4] or other property with the intent to cause damage.

Arson has four elements.

The elements are:
1.The malicious
2.burning
3.of the dwelling
4.of another

The malicious – for purposes of common law arson "malicious" means action creating a great risk of a burning. It is not required that the defendant acted intentionally or willfully for the purpose of burning a dwelling.

burning – at common law charring to any part of dwelling was sufficient to satisfy this element. No significant amount of damage to the dwelling was required. On the other hand mere discoloration from smoke was insufficient. Actual damage to the material from which the structure was built is required.[6] Damage to surface coverings such as carpets and wallpaper is insufficient.[6] Arson was not limited to the burning of wooden structures. Any injury or damage to the structure caused by exposure to heat or flame is sufficient.

of the dwelling – dwelling means a place of residence. The destruction of an unoccupied building was not considered as arson, "[s]ince arson protected habitation, the burning of an unoccupied house did not constitute arson." At common law a structure did not become a residence until the first occupants had moved in and ceased to be a dwelling if the occupants abandoned the premises with no intention of resuming their residency.[7] Dwelling includes structures and outbuildings within the curtilage.[8] Dwellings were not limited to houses. A barn could be the subject of arson if it was occupied as a dwelling.

of another – burning one's own dwelling does not constitute common law arson. However, for purposes of common law arson possession or occupancy rather than title determines whose dwelling the structure is.[8] Thus a tenant who sets fire to his rented house would not be guilty of common law arson,[8] while the landlord who set fire to a rented dwelling house would be guilty.

Furthermore, "[t]he burning of one's own dwelling to collect insurance did not constitute common law arson. It was generally assumed in early England that one had the legal right to destroy his own property in any manner he chose."[9]

Now try to build a justification for this activity as "lulz-fun' and that will pass a court of law and you might have a justifiable reason for it not being treated as such in EVE... basically your the "devil's night" group that gives everyone a pain in the butt feeling even other pvp'ers which scorn you activities as a bastardization of there legitimate kill records and activities on the boards...

My beef is really the KB scores...to many people use this as a quick fix to pad the boards... it was a pain in the ass and cluttered up the servers, was basically exploited and finally ended in a way that improved the game... everyone, minus the gankers has seen this as a plus... you had your day in the sun... now try another career...


First and foremost, this is a game and not a court of law. I'm wondering if the pressures from real-world environments will be mirrored in Eve Online, not whining about not being able to gank anymore, which I most certainly can.

So basically your entire post boils down to morality, which amounts to "I don't like the way you play and I'm glad if this ruins it for you."

Congratulations. You missed the real discussion.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#39 - 2012-09-24 03:19:02 UTC
PI Maker wrote:
why don't the 6k of you could create destroyer alts and just kill every thing in high sec. little schools of piranhas devouring the miners. aren't you guys the super villains in this particular universe? i'm terribly disappointed that you're down to forum posts. entertain me mr. player content!


We moved onto more profitable ventures such as the great freighter gank.
Tarinara
Doomheim
#40 - 2012-09-24 03:38:22 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Problem here is miners whined and CCP changed the game for them. They didn't adapt or change tactics themselves. Thanks to this short sightedness miners are going to suffer a loss of income, just when things were looking good.

Why is it The Rest of Us have to adapt and change while miners don't? Miners whined that us mission runners were 'mining' more minerals with a battleship and ammo, so ( usually crap ) loot drops were nerfed. Supposedly all these reprocessed minerals being sold cheap were driving their profits down. How about they adapt and put up buy orders in all the high population mission hubs and buy those cheap minerals? It's not hard, trust me.