These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#141 - 2012-09-26 20:48:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Gustav
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:

Your post was pretty revealing on that matter. You shuck the rookie ship like a bad haircut. You basically made Baitec's point. The rookie ship being the only viable option is a terrible, terrible admition of how broken this new system has become.

Actually I agree with him on the point of the Mack obsoleting the Skiff. Probably why the reasoning goes the same way.

Edit: and actualy, no, I didn't discard the rookie ship idea. In my latter post I played it out. But I wanted to point out that while mechanics made one option semi voable if people weren't an issue, the other wasn't viable compared to alternatives, and later even spelled out how if it were, the situation completely changes as while miners fill a real demand, gankers effectively do not. They only create demand.

You're wrong. Neither are viable, given numbers, to their alternatives. In neither case are you "better off with noob ships."

Also, your viewpoint is overly simplistic. Baitec provides you with technetium. Let's see how many Macks get built without that.

[Edit: For that matter, even I help in supplying your technetium.]

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

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#142 - 2012-09-26 21:10:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Darth Gustav wrote:

You're wrong. Neither are viable, given numbers, to their alternatives. In neither case are you "better off with noob ships."

Noobships are in a way viable for ganking hardened barges FOR PROFIT as a result of their now higher EHP. They are not in any way viable for miners because of yield, cargo and that same EHP provided by alternatives. The situation doesn't translate and if it did (noobships actually being viable miners) it would alter the landscape of the game in such a way that make the current state entirely irrelevant.
Darth Gustav wrote:

Also, your viewpoint is overly simplistic. Baitec provides you with technetium. Let's see how many Macks get built without that.

[Edit: For that matter, even I help in supplying your technetium.]

Baitec doesn't supply tech by ganking miners and many gankers are not involved in tech supply at all. While his ganking does create demand for the resources both he and the miner gather, he does not, in the act of ganking, provide those resources. Nor does a change in miner ganking alter how he provides the resources he does.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#143 - 2012-09-26 21:16:07 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:

You're wrong. Neither are viable, given numbers, to their alternatives. In neither case are you "better off with noob ships."

Noobships are in a way viable for ganking hardened barges FOR PROFIT as a result of their now higher EHP. They are not in any way viable for miners because of yield, cargo and that same EHP. The situation doesn't translate and if it did (noobships actually being viable miners) it would alter the landscape of the game in such a way that make the current state entirely irrelevant.
Darth Gustav wrote:

Also, your viewpoint is overly simplistic. Baitec provides you with technetium. Let's see how many Macks get built without that.

[Edit: For that matter, even I help in supplying your technetium.]

Baitec doesn't supply tech by ganking miners and many gankers are not involved in tech supply at all. While his ganking does create demand for the resources both he and the miner gather, he does not, in the act of ganking, provide those resources. Nor does a change in miner ganking alter how he provides the resources he does.

So you are now dissociating the ganker from the act of ganking for the purposes of your argument. I see.

Miners don't actually produce anything either, then, for that matter.

They merely gather it. They may be associated with actual producers, and in rare cases may themselves be producers, but this argument is so stupid I can't even keep it up.

As for your profitability by scale scenario, how many high-sec miners are there? You really don't think they could mine a good amount of trit in noob ships? it would be more profitable for them, according to you, if they suddenly just decided to and so did en-masse, as trit would nearly vanish from the market. Shocked

Your arguments are flimsy, your case foiled. Clearly your own statement about what would happen if noob ships were suddenly the top miners (mineral prices would skyrocket) indicate that, in fact, you agree with my original premise:

The only way to buff mining profits is to nerf mining.

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

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#144 - 2012-09-26 21:34:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Darth Gustav wrote:

So you are now dissociating the ganker from the act of ganking for the purposes of your argument. I see.

Miners don't actually produce anything either, then, for that matter.

They merely gather it. They may be associated with actual producers, and in rare cases may themselves be producers, but this argument is so stupid I can't even keep it up.

As for your profitability by scale scenario, how many high-sec miners are there? You really don't think they could mine a good amount of trit in noob ships? it would be more profitable for them, according to you, if they suddenly just decided to and so did en-masse, as trit would nearly vanish from the market. Shocked

Your arguments are flimsy, your case foiled. Clearly your own statement about what would happen if noob ships were suddenly the top miners (mineral prices would skyrocket) indicate that, in fact, you agree with my original premise:

The only way to buff mining profits is to nerf mining.

2 things overall:

1. I never disagreed with your premise. Just that particular assertion that miners being confined to noobships is comparable to gankers being confined to the same. Neither is a good state of thinks but one is semi workable but the other, if enforced by game mechanics massively changes things
2. I didn't disassociate a ganker from ganking. I disassociated the act of ganking from the act of defending tech moons. An individual can do both and many do, but there are gankers who don't defend tech moons the same as there are members of tech owning alliances that don't gank. The acts are not mutually inclusive and are functionally independent (though they are economically linked).

To specific arguments:
"So you are now dissociating the ganker from the act of ganking for the purposes of your argument. I see." - No, see 2 above. I'm not sure where you got this from unless you misread something.

"Miners don't actually produce anything either, then, for that matter." - Not sure where you are going with this part or that which immediately follows, so I'll skip it. It may also be addressed by the above.

"As for your profitability by scale scenario, how many high-sec miners are there? You really don't think they could mine a good amount of trit in noob ships?" - No

"it would be more profitable for them, according to you, if they suddenly just decided to and so did en-masse, as trit would nearly vanish from the market." - An items value is determined by both supply and demand. This is a reduction in supply. That you should agree with, correct? But what of demand? If demand stays the same then each of the far fewer units harvested becomes worth more. More for less of the same, which leads into your last statement:

"The only way to buff mining profits is to nerf mining." - First off, as stated above yes. I agree, but in more than the way you seem to have intended. Your way is to make it more dangerous again which reduces competition, vs. the noobship comment which just reduces yield. Both reduce supply and increase the overall value of minerals. Do you disagree with that?
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#145 - 2012-09-26 21:40:01 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:

The only way to buff mining profits is to nerf mining.

What? As soon as prices rise, more people will do it (regardless of how) and eventually you'll need to make this same claim again.

Some might be instinctively inclined to think the reverse is true then? Answer is no.

Buff mining to the max, let the market prices plummet, less will do it. Prices go up etc. etc.

See where this is going?


For mine, if I want to increase my profit, I need to increase revenue and to increase revenue, I need to increase demand.

Combine the revenue increase with efficiency / reduction in costs (doing the same job for less) is where I get to push, I win.

The entire (RL) economy is based around doing same for less WHILE you increase demand.

Demand increase options:
More ship losses.
More subs.
Higher requirements to build.

Anyone think of anymore?

"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..."

Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#146 - 2012-09-26 21:40:50 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:

So you are now dissociating the ganker from the act of ganking for the purposes of your argument. I see.

Miners don't actually produce anything either, then, for that matter.

They merely gather it. They may be associated with actual producers, and in rare cases may themselves be producers, but this argument is so stupid I can't even keep it up.

As for your profitability by scale scenario, how many high-sec miners are there? You really don't think they could mine a good amount of trit in noob ships? it would be more profitable for them, according to you, if they suddenly just decided to and so did en-masse, as trit would nearly vanish from the market. Shocked

Your arguments are flimsy, your case foiled. Clearly your own statement about what would happen if noob ships were suddenly the top miners (mineral prices would skyrocket) indicate that, in fact, you agree with my original premise:

The only way to buff mining profits is to nerf mining.

2 things overall:

1. I never disagreed with your premise. Just that particular assertion that miners being confined to noobships is comparable to gankers being confined to the same. Neither is a good state of thinks but one is semi workable but the other, if enforced by game mechanics massively changes things
2. I didn't disassociate a ganker from ganking. I disassociated the act of ganking from the act of defending tech moons. An individual can do both and many do, but there are gankers who don't defend tech moons the same as there are members of tech owning alliances that don't gank. The acts are not mutually inclusive and are functionally independent (though they are economically linked).

To specific arguments:
"So you are now dissociating the ganker from the act of ganking for the purposes of your argument. I see." - No, see 2 above. I'm not sure where you got this from unless you misread something.

"Miners don't actually produce anything either, then, for that matter." - Not sure where you are going with this part or that which immediately follows, so I'll skip it. It may also be addressed by the above.

"As for your profitability by scale scenario, how many high-sec miners are there? You really don't think they could mine a good amount of trit in noob ships?" - No

"it would be more profitable for them, according to you, if they suddenly just decided to and so did en-masse, as trit would nearly vanish from the market." - An items value is determined by both supply and demand. This is a reduction in supply. That you should agree with, correct? But what of demand? If demand stays the same then each of the far fewer units harvested becomes worth more. More for less of the same, which leads into your last statement:

"The only way to buff mining profits is to nerf mining." - First off, as stated above yes. I agree, but in more than the way you seem to have intended. Your way is to make it more dangerous again which reduces competition, vs. the noobship comment which just reduces yield. Both reduce supply and increase the overall value of minerals. Do you disagree with that?


I don't disagree with that. They are functionally the same thing. Both represent the predicted effects of negative pressure on mining profits.

So for profitability, it would be best if all miners agreed to mine in noob ships. Or if miners shot each other to strip down the share of demand garnered by other miners. Or if they got ganked occasionally because it was profitable to do on a reasonable scale.

But that doesn't happen. People do laundry while their Mack hoovers up ice and (to a slightly lesser extent) trit while they are nominally safe from all but the most zealous gank attempts...or by your estimation the most desperate. Because regardless of how you view it, resorting to noobships for ganking is desperate.

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

Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#147 - 2012-09-26 21:42:49 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:

The only way to buff mining profits is to nerf mining.

What? As soon as prices rise, more people will do it (regardless of how) and eventually you'll need to make this same claim again.

Some might be instinctively inclined to think the reverse is true then? Answer is no.

Buff mining to the max, let the market prices plummet, less will do it. Prices go up etc. etc.

See where this is going?


For mine, if I want to increase my profit, I need to increase revenue and to increase revenue, I need to increase demand.

Combine the revenue increase with efficiency / reduction in costs (doing the same job for less) is where I get to push, I win.

The entire (RL) economy is based around doing same for less WHILE you increase demand.

Demand increase options:
More ship losses.
More subs.
Higher requirements to build.

Anyone think of anymore?


If mining is sufficiently challenging/difficult, I believe that your initial premise is incorrect. Mineral prices and ice prices were higher before the barge buff, but more people mine now that prices are lower.

Sorry but the evidence does not fit your hypothesis.

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

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#148 - 2012-09-26 21:50:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Darth Gustav wrote:

I don't disagree with that. They are functionally the same thing. Both represent the predicted effects of negative pressure on mining profits.

So for profitability, it would be best if all miners agreed to mine in noob ships. Or if miners shot each other to strip down the share of demand garnered by other miners. Or if they got ganked occasionally because it was profitable to do on a reasonable scale.

But that doesn't happen. People do laundry while their Mack hoovers up ice and (to a slightly lesser extent) trit while they are nominally safe from all but the most zealous gank attempts...or by your estimation the most desperate. Because regardless of how you view it, resorting to noobships for ganking is desperate.

I never disagreed with this, but if we're talking viability vs current alternatives, which the argument seemed to be in response to a series of comments about cost of ganking post buff, the noobship one loosely fit the term (or at least came a lot closer to it). Miners with noobships under the same mechanics did not. That was the extent of my prior post.

What came after was a series of arguments I didn't think related but I responded anyways. I'll accept some fault for potentially misscommunicating my responses, but I'm not sure how Baitec and his involvement with tech moons became got into the discussion about or how you interpreted my posts.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#149 - 2012-09-26 21:53:57 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:

I don't disagree with that. They are functionally the same thing. Both represent the predicted effects of negative pressure on mining profits.

So for profitability, it would be best if all miners agreed to mine in noob ships. Or if miners shot each other to strip down the share of demand garnered by other miners. Or if they got ganked occasionally because it was profitable to do on a reasonable scale.

But that doesn't happen. People do laundry while their Mack hoovers up ice and (to a slightly lesser extent) trit while they are nominally safe from all but the most zealous gank attempts...or by your estimation the most desperate. Because regardless of how you view it, resorting to noobships for ganking is desperate.

I never disagreed with this, but if we're talking viability vs current alternatives, which the argument seemed to be in response to a series of comments about cost of ganking post buff, the noobship one loosely fit the term (or at least came a lot closer to it). Miners with noobships under the same mechanics did not. That was the extent of my prior post.

What came after was a series of arguments I didn't think related but I responded anyways. I'll accept some fault for potentially misscommunicating my responses, but I'm not sure how Baitec and his involvement with tech moons became got into the discussion about or how you interpreted my posts.

Sorry about that. I think it looked to me like you were flatly saying, "Miners produce, gankers don't." Or something to that effect.

In other words, from what I was reading it looked like miners could have it both ways (HTFU and coddling) while gankers were left with (HTFU) with the only option being, really, pretty extremely bad.

Again, sorry if I misconstrued your point about the other roles players who mine and/or gank fulfill. It was not my intent.

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

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#150 - 2012-09-26 22:07:06 UTC
PI Maker wrote:
your high sec pve got nerfed. get over it. i'm pretty sure that's what goons tell the rest of us.


Everyone's hisec PvE got nerfed. That's why pilots who actually mine for an income are upset.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#151 - 2012-09-26 22:25:18 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
What? As soon as prices rise, more people will do it (regardless of how) and eventually you'll need to make this same claim again.


Prices did rise. A handful more people got into mining, but not enough to bring prices down. The number of people mining was balanced by the perceived risk.

Touval Lysander wrote:
Buff mining to the max, let the market prices plummet, less will do it. Prices go up etc. etc.


Wrong. Market prices plummet, the miners that are doing it will keep doing it because it's an easy activity that they can now safely AFK. Prices will not go up: that is a fiction brought on by a misunderstanding of basic economic theory of supply and demand.

Assuming a strong demand: As supply rises, prices will settle to a new lower level. As supply diminishes, prices will settle to a new higher level. As prices drop, producers will simply make less profit. Producers will drop out of the market when their profit reaches zero. Now tell me what are the costs for a miner? It doesn't cost anything to mine ore with T1 mining lasers or strip miners. It doesn't cost anything to refine that ore into minerals. There are costs associated with selling, but they are proportional to the sale price, so irrelevant to the issue.

Touval Lysander wrote:
See where this is going?


Yes, prices will continue to fall until mining becomes unprofitable for the time invested. At that point, prices will stabilise at the level which there are still miners mining.

On one hand, I can see the miners leaving the game due to their income dropping in comparison to the prices of PLEX rising. But something tells me it's not miners that are the major purchasers of PLEX.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#152 - 2012-09-26 22:42:06 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
What? As soon as prices rise, more people will do it (regardless of how) and eventually you'll need to make this same claim again.


Prices did rise. A handful more people got into mining, but not enough to bring prices down. The number of people mining was balanced by the perceived risk.

Touval Lysander wrote:
Buff mining to the max, let the market prices plummet, less will do it. Prices go up etc. etc.


Wrong. Market prices plummet, the miners that are doing it will keep doing it because it's an easy activity that they can now safely AFK. Prices will not go up: that is a fiction brought on by a misunderstanding of basic economic theory of supply and demand.

Assuming a strong demand: As supply rises, prices will settle to a new lower level. As supply diminishes, prices will settle to a new higher level. As prices drop, producers will simply make less profit. Producers will drop out of the market when their profit reaches zero. Now tell me what are the costs for a miner? It doesn't cost anything to mine ore with T1 mining lasers or strip miners. It doesn't cost anything to refine that ore into minerals. There are costs associated with selling, but they are proportional to the sale price, so irrelevant to the issue.

Touval Lysander wrote:
See where this is going?


Yes, prices will continue to fall until mining becomes unprofitable for the time invested. At that point, prices will stabilise at the level which there are still miners mining.

On one hand, I can see the miners leaving the game due to their income dropping in comparison to the prices of PLEX rising. But something tells me it's not miners that are the major purchasers of PLEX.

To elaborate further, assume a gradually weakening demand and the system settles even lower. Only by increasing demand for minerals can miners hope to negate the effects of the pressure of their own bloated population selling to a finite demand. It is unclear to me what exactly a miner can do to more effectively increase the demand of minerals than present himself as a viable gank target and either employ smart mining techniques (which I have always supported) or tank their vessels (which I always found unnecessary if a pilot flies smart).

If you can get people to blow up their own ships en-masse and continue without loss of anything but mining time, you have increased demand for your own product.

If nobody is interested in your battlecruiser-like mining ship of infinite (ok half hour or so) storage, the fact is you're lowering demand for minerals. It's simple math. What CONCORD doesn't destroy does not require replacement.

That is where the Broken Window Parable comes into play, IMHO.

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

Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#153 - 2012-09-26 22:52:05 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:

Wrong. Market prices plummet, the miners that are doing it will keep doing it because it's an easy activity that they can now safely AFK. Prices will not go up: that is a fiction brought on by a misunderstanding of basic economic theory of supply and demand.

Please don't apply the "basic economic theory" as an argument. Please.

In RL, the benchmark everyone tries to use, we have an ever-increasing population and no-one goes about blowing up oil-tankers to keep the prices high.

The world economy and population - despite that it should mean serious supply/demand issues - has actually seen prices drop for most of our stuff because of effiencies.

That is just some of the most obvious differences when people try to equate RL economic theory into a VR environment.

But if we must equate.

Increased demand - for your product - increases revenue.
Increased efficiences - to gather/produce - increases margin.

The margin is the bit miners chase and is distinctly seperate from supply/demand (albeit Eve "supply/demand" is essentially very static).

"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..."

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#154 - 2012-09-26 23:04:50 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
Increased efficiences - to gather/produce - increases margin.

The definition of the word margin doesn't really work like that when we are talking about isk compensation for ore mined.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#155 - 2012-09-26 23:05:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Gustav
Touval Lysander wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:

Wrong. Market prices plummet, the miners that are doing it will keep doing it because it's an easy activity that they can now safely AFK. Prices will not go up: that is a fiction brought on by a misunderstanding of basic economic theory of supply and demand.

Please don't apply the "basic economic theory" as an argument. Please.

In RL, the benchmark everyone tries to use, we have an ever-increasing population and no-one goes about blowing up oil-tankers to keep the prices high.

The world economy and population - despite that it should mean serious supply/demand issues - has actually seen prices drop for most of our stuff because of effiencies.

That is just some of the most obvious differences when people try to equate RL economic theory into a VR environment.

But if we must equate.

Increased demand - for your product - increases revenue.
Increased efficiences - to gather/produce - increases margin.

The margin is the bit miners chase and is distinctly seperate from supply/demand (albeit Eve "supply/demand" is essentially very static).

The same rules apply. The only difference is in the real world money is created from debt, while in Eve it's created by blowing up red pluses (and certain other activities). That the demand is "nearly static" is of particular note, because it's not quite static. There are fluctuations in demand, and the demand is also finite at any reference frame (In other words, only over an eternity is demand infinite).

Miners share the demand for minerals with all the other producers and miners who also use those products in their goods.

Because it has been argued that resources are not limited nor can they be exhausted, I'm submitting that it's the demand which is the true resource fulcrum of competition in Eve. If less miners fulfill the same demand (or a similar demand even) as a greater number do, the profit for the smaller mining population will be higher by necessity.

By necessity.

In other words, to be absolutely blunt, Eve is not a game whose community should favor a giant fleet of nearly worthless bags of hitpoints mining the inexhaustible fields of rocks in ever-increasing numbers. That scenario does not paint a healthy economic picture for Eve's future. What our community should want is a dedicated core of competent and attentive (read: efficient) miners.

In what scenario can it be considered good for miners that anybody and his brother can train a mack and go to work edging out their share of the buyers? Remember, miners' demands will be negligible because, again, they aren't being preyed upon like they were before. Less ship losses per pilot means more "effective" miners, right? But lower demand for miners as a profession - and gankers too. Again, by necessity.

In my honest opinion, CCP need to find a way to make it profitable to gank the new mining ships. Perhaps they should get a new "role bonus" causing them to drop a significant amount more tech ii salvage if they blow up. After all, the risk to attack them increased significantly. Why not buff the reward somewhat as well? That would provide a reasonable amount of negative pressure, I think, to balance the recent overhaul to exhumers and, to a lesser extent, barges as well.

[edit: Oh hey, such a bonus would also encourage, once again, the diversification of fits and ship choices that CCP say they want. Make the bonus based on the EHP of the base ship, so that if a player chooses the tank, he's likely to fit it for a tank. That would be...pretty cool.]

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

Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#156 - 2012-09-26 23:48:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Touval Lysander
Darth Gustav wrote:
..stuff..

Mate. For all the faffing about on this. In RL we do not go around blowing up oil-tankers or oil-rigs to increase prices. Period.

And you are completely overlooking the pyschological cost in a gank regime.

Firstly, it's agreed that rocks in Eve is infinite supply and that can't change for obvious reasons.

Thus far, blowing up miners has had only temporary effects on the economy because demand IS as good as absolutely static. But with what has happened thus far - ganking with little economic impact - the anghst from miners was real and tangible.

Supply will always be reasonably static too - the amount mined is "miners logged in x hrs mined" regardless of what's available to mine (which is THE factor in RL resource pricing)

To a miner, the ONLY variable is the difference between what it costs to mine and what it's sold for. No miner is going to repeatedly take a hit on a 200m ship (which, because of the losses is going to make them even more expensive).

You'll fuel a regime where if ganking got too bad people will just quit if that's all they do. Profit/supply/demand is going to prove totally irrelevant. It will only be based around economies of scale. There will be less pilots mining but also less pilots buying. Prices will remain exactly the same.

Demand will actually decrease almost commensurate with the decrease in supply. You get less targets and away we go on a downward spiral until it's all buffed back up again or we all play something else.

I'm calling that we need to increase demand and leave the efficiencies for the miners to work out.

1) Make ships require more mats to build.
2) Make ships easier to kill.
3) Buff insurance so there is less risk aversion (put some obvious no-way-in-hell flags for insurance pay-outs duh!!).
4) Decrease the RL value of subs
5) Provide more content to increase subs and leave sub prices static (whichever works best).

Regardless, nerfing production (by death or by decree) has never been a way to increase profits in RL or VR (withholding supply does but that can only occur where a monopoly over the resource occurs - eg: diamonds and to some extent gold and for VR, T2 mats etc.)

Nerfing the cost to produce always has and always will be the area of profit given (reasonably) static supply and demand which is the Eve economy through and through.

"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..."

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#157 - 2012-09-27 00:11:12 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
..stuff..

Mate. For all the faffing about on this. In RL we do not go around blowing up oil-tankers or oil-rigs to increase prices. Period.





This isn't RL.

Its no coincidence that ice mining sucked for years untill the two ice interdictions hit. We effectivly wiped out the vast bulk of miners who were either bots or very bad at it. Coupled with market panic we brought about a three fold increase in profits for miners. Then the barge buff happened and the ganking stopped. The result?

A collapse of the ice prices and the spawning of large bot fleets and porly tanked scrubs flooding the market again. Turns out, ganking is a good thing for miners.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#158 - 2012-09-27 00:13:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Gustav
Not to mention that in real life we may not blow up stuff to increase prices (this is dubious and debatable) but we certainly do blow stuff up.

Conveniently, the model I made in this thread mimics real life. Prices go up when we blow stuff up.

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

Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#159 - 2012-09-27 00:23:20 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
..stuff..

Mate. For all the faffing about on this. In RL we do not go around blowing up oil-tankers or oil-rigs to increase prices. Period.





This isn't RL.

Its no coincidence that ice mining sucked for years untill the two ice interdictions hit. We effectivly wiped out the vast bulk of miners who were either bots or very bad at it. Coupled with market panic we brought about a three fold increase in profits for miners. Then the barge buff happened and the ganking stopped. The result?

A collapse of the ice prices and the spawning of large bot fleets and porly tanked scrubs flooding the market again. Turns out, ganking is a good thing for miners.

Funny how it's "not RL" when you justify the ganks but you use RL economic theory to do so.

And my point is made exaclty. The change in prices was temporary. Period.

BUT, and this is my point, the anger/anghst/whine whatever you want to call it over the interdiction bought about an EXTERNAL force to circumvent it.

Why? Because the impact to the game and the players (in this, a VR world) was seriously causing a problem. CCP saw it for what it was and "fixed it".

We cannot call "God" in RL when things go bad and to be perfectly honest CCP played "God" to fix the problem. Whether I or you or anyone else agrees is irrelevant.

>> CCP's RL economic reality required a fix. And so it came to be.

Bring back manic ganking again and it'll simply happen again.

I stand by all this talk about gank, not gank to manipulate prices is purely faffing.

You have to come up with another way.

"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..."

Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#160 - 2012-09-27 00:34:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Gustav
This is a legitimate thread discussing game mechanics and the complex economic pressures involved in mining and ganking.

Please try to keep your posts on-topic. Personal attacks aren't welcome here, thanks.

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