These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

The best thing for all ore mining ...
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jenshae Chiroptera
#1 - 2011-11-11 11:40:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
... might be to reduce the minerals that ore produces and in turn how much ore is in asteroids.

[Forum ate my post, so you get the very short version. This could have been multi-post or a page of posts.]

Quote:
#1 "We should be competing for the resources, not just picking any high sec system and having no worries."

#2 "Actually, I think the more elegant solution would be to just take out a bunch of asteroid belts. Keep the rates and all that the same, just crowd the miners together and get them to explore more worm holes to find the gravimetric sites"

#3 The long term goal, is just to have people competing over the mining sites. Raise the average cost of ships to were people at least pause to think about committing to a fight. "Is this worth it in ISK?"




  1. Yield drops
  2. Prices remain the same
  3. Frustration - some miners do other things.
  4. Supply drops
  5. Demand remains the same
  6. Prices rise
  7. Miners have to go to more belts and systems (vulnerable at gates as will the increase in haulers.)
  8. Miners try to out mine each other and win systems peacefully.
  9. Conflict goes up, more ships are destroyed
  10. Demand goes up
  11. Prices rise again
  12. More corps are pushed into bigger alliances and there is more people doing PVP
  13. PVP / missioners are paid to be near at hand to keep territorial claim of systems
  14. Bigger alliance start moving into low sec and low class worm holes
  15. Risks increase, more ships destroyed
  16. Prices go up.
  17. There is less and less griefing combat, ships are too expensive to throw away like that.
  18. More people are pushed to corps for a supply of ships, ore or ISK
  19. Even larger alliance now start moving into high class worm holes and null sec.
  20. Blob warfare is reduced, ships are now too expensive to throw away to protect small assets or low yield systems.
  21. More strategic game play, information gathering and so forth goes on. Using ISK to defeat opponents without throwing away expensive ships increases.
  22. Players are more spread out, more options are open to them and they are more in demand
  23. They feel more closely connected to each other and encourage more players to join this tough but rewarding universe.


Short version:
Supply down -> demand up -> prices up -> combat up -> prices up -> players unite for combat and supply -> friendship -> more evenly spread of players across systems.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Cryten Jones
Advantage Inc
#2 - 2011-11-11 11:42:06 UTC
What?

-CJ
Jenshae Chiroptera
#3 - 2011-11-11 11:44:44 UTC
Cryten Jones wrote:
What?

-CJ


Supply and demand with conflict fuelling the progression.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Cryten Jones
Advantage Inc
#4 - 2011-11-11 11:54:57 UTC
There are lots of wild assumptions in your post, however other than making miners mine for longer to get the same return I can't see it changing anything.

Trouble is that there is way too much coming from loot recycling etc to make a change.

How, what would be good would be if recycling modules created salvage items rather than minerals.... that WOULD make a difference!

-CJ
Karn Dulake
Doomheim
#5 - 2011-11-11 11:57:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Karn Dulake
You put a lot of work into this and have obviously been thinking about this a bit

Expect trolls and self important players who will try to derail your thoughts until you give up


(you have made a few assumptions but who doesn't)
I dont normally troll, but when i do i do it on General Discussion.
Captain Megadeath
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2011-11-11 12:01:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Megadeath
Those same effects can be achieved by 2 simple steps.

1, banning reported, proven bots.

2 removing drone loot.

Every other idea that floats about the numerous mining threads created daily will never have the same effect as the 2
I have listed and are, quite frankly, bad ideas that will hinder non-afk miners (especially mining groups and multiboxers)

Captcha, re-captcha, mini-games and ore manipulation will never effect the market and mining as a whole as hitting the bots, especially the drone region ratting bots that have the biggest effect on markets, by far. In fact they will hinder mining if not out right destroy it further.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#7 - 2011-11-11 12:07:04 UTC
Captain Megadeath wrote:
... that will hinder non-afk miners (especially mining groups and multiboxers) ....


Are you a miner? Is there a mining corp in your alliance?

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Captain Megadeath
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2011-11-11 12:12:06 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Captain Megadeath wrote:
... that will hinder non-afk miners (especially mining groups and multiboxers) ....


Are you a miner? Is there a mining corp in your alliance?



Yes, I am a miner. I run a small mining and manufacturing corporation composed of hulk miners with orca support.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#9 - 2011-11-11 12:15:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Captain Megadeath wrote:
... Yes, I am a miner. I run a small mining and manufacturing corporation composed of hulk miners with orca support.


How many hours and how many Hulks with how many belts? The only time I have felt that a belt was low of ore was when there was 8 Hulks with Orca mining virtually all day with just seven belts.

Asteroids as a resource are just too bountiful, that is why the price of ore is so low.

EVE is too abundant.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Gealbhan
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#10 - 2011-11-11 12:30:27 UTC
My life fades
the vision dims.
All that remains are memories.
I remember a time of chaos
ruined dreams this wasted cosmos.
But most of all, I remember a Miner
the man we called Tim.
To understand who he was, you have to go back to another time
when the world was powered by Tritanium
and the backwater systems sprouted great towers of pipe and steel.
Gone now swept away.
For reasons long forgotten, two mighty warrior tribes went to war
and touched off a blaze which engulfed them all.
Without the Tritanium they were nothing. They'd built a house of straw.
The thundering Hulks sputtered and stopped.
Their leaders talked and talked and talked
but nothing could stem the avalanche.
Their world crumbled the Towers exploded.
A whirlwind of looting
a firestorm of fear.
Men began to feed on men.
In the systems it was a laser-line nightmare.
Only those mobile enough to scavenge
brutal enough to pillage would survive.
The gangs took over the belts
ready to wage war for a jet can full of ore.
And in this maelstrom of decay
ordinary men were battered and smashed.
Men like Tim
the Miner Tim.
In the roar of a strip miner, he lost everything
and became a shell of a man
a burnt out, desolate man
a man haunted by the demons of his past.
A man who wandered out into nullsec.
And it was here in this blighted place
that he learned to live again.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#11 - 2011-11-11 12:33:27 UTC
Gealbhan wrote:
... he learned to live again.


Where did you get that? Perfect for this thread. Thank you.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#12 - 2011-11-11 12:34:36 UTC
Just one problem:

Steps 8 and 9 (and possibly even 7) won't happen.
Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
#13 - 2011-11-11 12:40:46 UTC
All though I'm not entirely against your idea, you seem to have completely forgotten (or simply left out) one thing:

40% of all minerals in game come from reprocessed goods (drone compounds, modules etc.). At least they used to, not sure what the current number is.

Something would need to be done in regards to that as well.

Stop the spamming, not the scamming!
Jenshae Chiroptera
#14 - 2011-11-11 12:41:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Tippia wrote:
Just one problem:

Steps 8 and 9 (and possibly even 7) won't happen.


Then they sit and sit and demand goes up but they keep supplying too little for the demand. So, it is a balancing act, always is

If they didn't make a surplus then more and more corp / alliances would either do it for the ISK or part time it to have the ore for their ships.
Fille Balle wrote:
All though I'm not entirely against your idea, you seem to have completely forgotten (or simply left out) one thing:

40% of all minerals in game come from reprocessed goods (drone compounds, modules etc.). At least they used to, not sure what the current number is.

Something would need to be done in regards to that as well.


True, same logic would apply. All the CCP would be doing is changing the parent value of the objects. They could even slider it in their own applet to push the markets and conflict in either direction.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#15 - 2011-11-11 12:51:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Ptraci
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:


  • Yield drops
  • Prices remain the same


    • Thank you for pointing out your lack of understanding of economics before I had to read the rest of your post. Not to mention this will not affect price as much as you think because apparently most of the minerals come from recycled mission loot anyway. "Miners do other things" - yeah, like missions.

    Anyway the only people who mine ore are (1) Noobs and (2) industrialists who haven't realized yet it's cheaper +faster to mine ice, sell it and buy the tritanium than to mine veld. Although (2) would change quickly if everyone stops mining trit, the price would go up and it would be profitable to mine trit again.

    The industrialists are never going to stop mining because they need the minerals to build. The noobs are never going to stop mining because they don't know any better. Believe me roid mining is not the problem - it's a money loser not a money maker. Even level 4's are more profitable. Ice certainly so. Incursions and anoms definitely.

    The problem is that some people just can't stand the fact that it's possible to turn on your lasers and go AFK for 10 minutes. It eats away at you. GET OVER IT. They're making even less money than you in your rifter. The ONLY thing that should be prevented much, much more is botting. But that requires manpower and man hours from CCP. Since I mine with an Orca and multiple accounts, I am always being told I'm a bot despite the fact that I never bot. I always make a point of being chatty in local and I'm rarely AFK. So it's HARD for CCP to tell who really is a bot, and who isn't. But the rest of us - leave us alone we're not hurting you. We're building the stuff you want to fly, and the stuff you want to blow up.
    Tippia
    Sunshine and Lollipops
    #16 - 2011-11-11 12:55:31 UTC
    Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
    Then they sit and sit and demand goes up but they keep supplying too little for the demand. So, it is a balancing act, always is
    No, what will happen is that they will mine more (or more people will mine). Supply goes back to normal; price finds a new equilibrium; system goes static again.

    …and as Ptraci points out, all of that assumes that the miners will be idiots enough not to charge for their time.
    Fille Balle
    Ballbreakers R us
    #17 - 2011-11-11 13:02:17 UTC
    Ptraci wrote:
    Thank you for pointing out your lack of understanding of economics before I had to read the rest of your post. Not to mention this will not affect price as much as you think because apparently most of the minerals come from recycled mission loot anyway. "Miners do other things" - yeah, like missions.


    Sorry, but you are incorrect. First off, it's not mission loot, and secondly it's not "most of", it's a large percentage. It's from recycled modules/drone compounds in general, and if you factor mineral compression in to it, the percentage is probably a bit smaller.

    In fact, more that half of the minerals that come from reprocessing stem from drone compounds. Last time I checked there weren't that many drone missions.

    Stop the spamming, not the scamming!
    Ptraci
    3 R Corporation
    #18 - 2011-11-11 13:06:53 UTC
    Fille Balle wrote:
    [ Last time I checked there weren't that many drone missions.


    Drone MISSIONS. Mission loot. I guess I could have been more specific, and I guess you're allowed to nit pick if I was over-generalizing. I should have just said "loot". You are correct. On the other hand drone missions provide zero bounty isk. Therefore it's a mineral and only a mineral faucet, if you discount the agent reward.
    Tippia
    Sunshine and Lollipops
    #19 - 2011-11-11 13:07:11 UTC
    Fille Balle wrote:
    In fact, more that half of the minerals that come from reprocessing stem from drone compounds. Last time I checked there weren't that many drone missions.
    Are you kidding? There are tons of them.
    War Kitten
    Panda McLegion
    #20 - 2011-11-11 13:10:21 UTC
    tl;dr:

    1) Arbitrary change
    2) Assumption
    3) Conjecture
    4) ???
    5) Profit!

    I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
    123Next pageLast page