Science & Industry

You asked me to give specifics on why your motives weren't the same as the public, I did. You don't get to be upset now that they make you look greedy and petty. I have listed time and again why this is going to hurt the ice mining profession, for both the casual and hardcore players. Making false sweeping generalizations does not disprove anything I have said.

• Please explain how casual highsec players are going to be able to get into ice mining when no ice belts will exist during primetime?
• Please explain how they'll be able to shift to mining ore in ore belts that are stripped clean within hours of DT every day?
• Please explain why it makes sense to artificially add ice restrictions to low/nullsec when the intended goal is to increase supply out there
• Please explain why removing Dark Glitter from lowsec entirely is going to increase the amount of ozone that's being supplied (DG currently exists in .1 systems, after the patch it won't)
• Please explain why the rorqual should not be able to compress ice at a decent rate
• Please explain where all the ozone in the galaxy is going to come from once nullsec supply is nerfed

Once again you, a non-industrialist, are trying to control the mining profession. This is like a council of men voting that abortion should be illegal. You claim my math is hilariously off, but give no numbers. My numbers are accurate. You say highsec easily supplies its own demand of ozone, but that is OBVIOUSLY not true. This only highlights how little you understand the intricate details of the profession. Highsec ice produces ozone:HW at a 1:2 ratio, there is never enough ozone to match demand.

Perhaps you'd care to take a look at our old galaxy wide ozone analysis or our galaxy wide heavy water analysis. Please explain where highsec is getting their ozone from? Please explain how they will get enough ozone now that you can consider their supply of ice cut to 80% production of what that is. Please explain how if right now nullsec is only mass multiboxing miners... that if we take away their ability to function that the ozone supply in the galaxy will still be sufficient? It won't.

You see, we've run the numbers. We've been miners from the start. We know the system. I'm telling you, these changes are going to make ice mining untenable.

no because they're bloodtears

You fear to go into those mines. The EvilWeaselSA delved too greedily and too deep. You know what he awoke in the darkness of Vale of the Silent... an autistic sperglord.

Abloobloobloo, its always been untenable which is why it takes multiboxing spergs to even make it worthwhile.

What if the venture, or a T2 venture was able to equip a single or dual strip miner. Adjust bonuses so that at best it would yield half what the Procurer can. Currently all the mining barges and exhummers have been balanced for a base yield equal to 3 strips. If a T2 venture could equip a strip miner with yield equal to 1/2 that, or 1.5 strips, or 2 strips with a 25% penalty to mix it up a bit and still hit the 1.5 yield mark. It would still fill the same role while being able to equip a single ICE miner. And only be slightly better than the T1 venture for normal ore mining.

I can see that you took my use of sperg as a personal slur towards the Bloodtear. I've met them, IRL. I like them. They are often very correct in their assessments. This is not one they are correct in. Furthermore, I'm disappointed in this thread.

I'm going to start having 10th birthdays at the end of this month. I've mined for a long time. These are good changes. They are taking the game in a great direction.

As far as me being purged, I'm useful. Which is more than I can say for many pubbie allies.

Add ice harvesting to the Venture?

Seems pretty simple. Create a new ice mining module (and T2 version) that only the Venture can fit. Use the same insanely high CPU method that full size ice harvesters use, and only give the 99% CPU reduction to the Venture. Balance the cycle time however you want.

The ship already has a 5k ore hold so it can hold 5 blocks, so no adjustment needed there.

If I knew the trouble it was going to cause I'd of told the Amarr to mine their own damn ice

I actually asked you to give specifics on why my ideas were wrong. I can, of course, be irritated that information we shared to attempt to help your alliance with the same problem we are going through - a massive adjustment in how alliances fund themselves - is being spread around eveo and used to try and attack us and protect the private profits of your personal mining operation. Our motives are to continue to fund our alliance, which generates a vast amount of content for our players, our allies, and the entire game, as well as make eve a better game because the better it is, the more our players have fun and the more we can recruit new players. But motives are fairly irrelevant: I could easily simply argue that you should be ignored because you're just trying to protect your massive multiboxing ice fleet, but I don't consider that a good way to argue over design changes. To the extent you're right or wrong, you're right or wrong on the merits. Though I will point out to the extent you're saying "I am a miner listen to me", you're both not the type of miner this change is aimed at encouraging, and you are a very rare breed of miner with different interests from other miners.



The fear of null being unable to supply DG are overblown: even at moderate LO price increases it becomes hilariously profitable and there is more than enough supply in null with these anoms to meet galactic demand. I dislike tax evasion being easy because I believe, as a game design, funding alliances through bottom-up taxation makes a more interesting game, more interesting 0.0, incentivizes alliances to care about economic activity, and a whole host of other reasons. My job is much easier if we are just moonlords but the game is less interesting (which is why we keep advocating for change in direct opposition to our interests).

As for the highsec stuff: I am fully aware that no change that leaves ice infinite in highsec will actually create the necessary increase in null mining so the idea "keep it infinite just nerf it a tad" is a non-starter.




I am an industrialist. I am a very, very successful and good industrialist. I also make my money on knowing how every bit of the game works and what effect changes will have. When we discuss macro effects of changes, we are on my territory, not yours, and I'm one of the best in the game at it. I hope we can end trying to simply argue "listen to me because I am X" rather than "listen to me because of these specific reasons that we can discuss".

Your numbers on LO do not take into account where the LO is used. Highsec doesn't come close to supplying enough LO for the galaxy. But it doesn't use very much, and it can easily supply itself. People export LO from null, trade it in jita, and export it back to null for the convenience. LO use in high is limited to pos, and you can find from CCP posts how many pos are in empire vs. null.

Ultimately the problem is that what this change seeks to create is a massive increase in casual miners, which I view as vital to revitalizing 0.0. That will, of course, hurt the existing mega-miners who currently monopolize the market. But the casual miner crowd produces a vast amount of content (local minerals, pvp, interdictable alliance income, local industry) that the mega-miner does not. That's not to say the mega-miner should be driven out: grav anoms are basically perfect for that style of gameplay and requires only a relatively minor change in playstyle. This is good for the game, and it's the health of the game that matters most.

FYI next time you want to pull the 'Goons are just looking out for themselves!' card remember that we've been the ones not only planning for, but advocating a tech nerf and moon rebalance because ultimately it was the best thing for EVE.