These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Mining need to be changed

First post
Author
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#81 - 2014-03-09 13:14:21 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
supply and demand. you've just increased supply which drops the price. there's nothing mystical about it.
You're oversimplifying, a common mistake people make when attempting to analyze complex systems.

For example, you can't teleport minerals at zero cost. So more minerals mined and consumed in null could cause less demand for minerals (and/or equipment) in Jita.

This COULD result in lower prices in highsec, but... less demand + less profit with the 'safe old mining equipment' could also result in less people mining in highsec so also LESS supply in highsec.

So less demand + less supply = who knows what would happen to highsec prices?


Dave Stark wrote:
also, your idea hasn't solved a single issue.
OP was suggesting mining become less time consuming and more interesting, I suggested faster but riskier mining equipment...

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!

Dave Stark
#82 - 2014-03-09 13:20:39 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
supply and demand. you've just increased supply which drops the price. there's nothing mystical about it.
You're oversimplifying, a common mistake people make when attempting to analyze complex systems.

For example, you can't teleport minerals at zero cost. So more minerals mined and consumed in null could cause less demand for minerals (and/or equipment) in Jita.

This COULD result in lower prices in highsec, but... less demand + less profit with the 'safe old mining equipment' could also result in less people mining in highsec so also LESS supply in highsec.

So less demand + less supply = who knows what would happen to highsec prices?


Dave Stark wrote:
also, your idea hasn't solved a single issue.
OP was suggesting mining become less time consuming and more interesting, I suggested faster but riskier mining equipment...


i haven't oversimplified anything; if you double the yield of minerals, the price will drop as you haven't changed demand. you're also correct that you can't teleport minerals at 0 cost. you've just made 1bn isk of minerals take up more space, which will increase shipping costs, further devaluing mining.
if you're decreasing demand in jita, that also contributes to depressed prices, except that won't happen because it has been explained to death by people more eloquent than me why null sec imports so much of their stuff from jita.

except, you haven't changed demand so your equation is meaningless. all you've done is doubled supply, which leads to a guaranteed drop in prices of minerals.

being ganked without concord assistance doesn't make mining more fun, it makes it less fun so you REALLY haven't solved a single thing, much less the OP's issues. Also, there's already a solution to obtaining minerals at a faster rate; by not mining.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#83 - 2014-03-09 13:57:38 UTC
An interesting discussion on GD, nice!

Let's leave mineral prices out for a moment, because some people would like them higher, others would like them lower. What is best is a matter of personal point of view. So let's talk minerals.

Supply = yield X miners X avg time spent mining

Also, supply = demand (assuming stock levels adjust after a while).

With double yield, demand would stay roughly the same or, probably, increase a bit because of easier overall availability of minerals. Say +10%. Which isn't bad for EVE, is it? People having more ships and POSs to have fun with - preferably blowing them up.


So if demand doesnt change much, higher yield means less miners and/or less average time spent mining.

So if you mine because you like it, nothing changes. Ok, also add a mini-game if you want, have fun!

OTOH, if you mine because you 'need to' for whatever reason but find it boring, you mine less (in highsec, you also need to be more 'on the ball' to achieve this).

Win for all?


Finally, why do you think being shot while mining in highsec always needs to be a 'gank'? Don't you think at least some highsec miners would enjoy the challenge of finding ways to evade danger in exchange of higher yield? Enjoy higher yields when they 'win', accept having their ship blown up when they 'lose'? Why do you assume this wouldn't be fun?

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!

Themanfromdalmontee
EVE RADIO ARMY
#84 - 2014-03-09 14:01:49 UTC
Features and Ideas and nothing wrong with mining....
Dave Stark
#85 - 2014-03-09 14:07:48 UTC
except your argument falls down at supply = demand. that simply isn't true.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#86 - 2014-03-09 14:21:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Gully Alex Foyle
Dave Stark wrote:
except your argument falls down at supply = demand. that simply isn't true.
It is, unless you're assuming EVE players stockpile minerals indefinetly.

Every single unit of mined Veldspar either becomes Trit and then an in-game asset, or gets stockpiled.

CCP would have the figures, but I'm assuming total mineral stock fluctuations are much lower than total mineral consumption.

So supply = demand + stock increase (or - stock decrease) but stock increase/decrease is much lower than demand (and evens out over time), so yeah supply = demand.

I may be wrong, though, do you have different figures?

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!

Dave Stark
#87 - 2014-03-09 14:27:29 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
except your argument falls down at supply = demand. that simply isn't true.
It is, unless you're assuming EVE players stockpile minerals indefinetly.

Every single unit of mined Veldspar either becomes Trit and then an in-game asset, or gets stockpiled.

CCP would have the figures, but I'm assuming total mineral stock fluctuations are much lower than total mineral consumption.

So supply = demand + stock increase (or - stock decrease) but stock increase/decrease is much lower than demand (and evens out over time), so yeah supply = demand.

I may be wrong, though, do you have different figures?


no, it isn't.

if i start mining more, that doesn't make people want to buy more minerals.
if i start mining less, that doesn't make people want to buy less minerals.

supply does NOT equal demand.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#88 - 2014-03-09 14:40:56 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
if i start mining more, that doesn't make people want to buy more minerals.
if i start mining less, that doesn't make people want to buy less minerals.

supply does NOT equal demand.
Erm... yeah, supply/demand equilibrium doesn't apply to Dave Stark mining because he feels like it.

But it does apply to the EVE universe as a whole, unless there are enough people mining 'for the lulz' (and willing to give away the minerals for 0 ISK) to cover total demand.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!

Dave Stark
#89 - 2014-03-09 14:48:39 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
if i start mining more, that doesn't make people want to buy more minerals.
if i start mining less, that doesn't make people want to buy less minerals.

supply does NOT equal demand.
Erm... yeah, supply/demand equilibrium doesn't apply to Dave Stark mining because he feels like it.

But it does apply to the EVE universe as a whole, unless there are enough people mining 'for the lulz' (and willing to give away the minerals for 0 ISK) to cover total demand.


resorting to personal attacks doesn't make you right.

the volume of minerals mined, and the volume of minerals required to meet production requirements do not influence each other.

ships don't magically require less minerals because people are mining less.
ships don't magically require more minerals because people are mining more.

I'm not sure how many different ways i need to phrase it until you understand.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#90 - 2014-03-09 15:01:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Gully Alex Foyle
Dave Stark wrote:
ships don't magically require less minerals because people are mining less.
ships don't magically require more minerals because people are mining more.
Because you've got it all mixed up! It's this way*:

Most people would mine less if less minerals were needed.
Most people would mine more if more minerals were needed.

Except, of course, people that mine 'just for the lulz'. Which % of EVE minerals would you say are mined by people who just enjoy mining no matter the profit (or opportunity cost)?


*EDIT: as a matter of fact, it IS also true that some people would buy that additional ship if more minerals were available, but the opposite is more straightforward to understand

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!

Dave Stark
#91 - 2014-03-09 15:10:11 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
ships don't magically require less minerals because people are mining less.
ships don't magically require more minerals because people are mining more.
Because you've got it all mixed up! It's this way:

Most people would mine less if less minerals were needed.
Most people would mine more if more minerals were needed.

Except, of course, people that mine 'just for the lulz'. Which % of EVE minerals would you say are mined by people who just enjoy mining no matter the profit (or opportunity cost)?


except that simply isn't true, as i've pointed out, because supply does not equal demand and vice versa.

If I'm trying to fill up 10 production lines, I need X minerals, and i don't care how much the miners are mining, i'm still going to need X minerals. my X minerals isn't influenced by how much miners are, or are not mining.

If people started mining less, i still need X minerals, not Y minerals where Y < X. supply =/= demand.

The same happens if miners start mining more. I'm still going to need X minerals, not Z minerals where Z > X. because once again, supply =/= demand.
Dave Stark
#92 - 2014-03-09 15:11:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
*EDIT: as a matter of fact, it IS also true that some people would buy that additional ship if more minerals were available, but the opposite is more straightforward to understand


no, they wouldn't buy that extra ship if more minerals were available. there isn't an extra ship to buy.
Also, it has no bearing on the discussion even if there were an extra ship for them to buy.
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#93 - 2014-03-09 15:12:10 UTC
Mining does need to change. When I started playing, I mined. Many do. But I wouldn't dream of mining now. It's boring, unprofitable and risky. Not the kind of risky I like either.

Why would anyone create a task that is so mind numbingly boring that only the insane would do it at their keyboard, and then condemn and punish those who do it the only way it can be sanely done by making them easy targets for suicide ganking? The whole system is broken from the ground up.

I would like to want to mine. What ever happened to ring mining?

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf

Cheng Musana
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#94 - 2014-03-09 15:16:05 UTC
more supply of minerals= more competition to sell the stuff. And usually the mineral price goes lower and at some point i will get a atron for 500ISK.
Mathrin
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#95 - 2014-03-09 15:29:46 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
ships don't magically require less minerals because people are mining less.
ships don't magically require more minerals because people are mining more.
Because you've got it all mixed up! It's this way*:

Most people would mine less if less minerals were needed.
Most people would mine more if more minerals were needed.

Except, of course, people that mine 'just for the lulz'. Which % of EVE minerals would you say are mined by people who just enjoy mining no matter the profit (or opportunity cost)?


*EDIT: as a matter of fact, it IS also true that some people would buy that additional ship if more minerals were available, but the opposite is more straightforward to understand



Dave has been right in his posts against his argument.

Infact we have seen been in a situation you are trying to point out. Currently trit is around 4 isk. There was a time it was around 2 isk. People don't have fewer isk because trit is twice as expensive as it used to be. Most don't even care how much trit, or the ship costs. They have their ways to make isk to PVP and that's that.

Speaking of ships I believe you made a comment about eve players not having a never ending stockpile of minerals. Look at the after effects of battleship changes on that point.
Mathrin
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#96 - 2014-03-09 15:32:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Mathrin
I would be open to changing mining but I don't want to be some click intensive activity. When I mine it is to kick back and unwind, usually after work, sometimes durinf a movie. The most I have every enjoyed mining was when I was in null mining with alliance mates. The mining itself wasn't fun but chatting it up on ts made it enjoyable.
Adela Talvanen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#97 - 2014-03-09 19:10:58 UTC
Mining is relaxing, and if you in a belt being heavily mined you can watch what is going on around you.
Your Dad Naked
Doomheim
#98 - 2014-03-09 20:36:20 UTC
Arduemont wrote:
Mining does need to change. When I started playing, I mined. Many do. But I wouldn't dream of mining now. It's boring, unprofitable and risky. Not the kind of risky I like either.

Why would anyone create a task that is so mind numbingly boring that only the insane would do it at their keyboard, and then condemn and punish those who do it the only way it can be sanely done by making them easy targets for suicide ganking? The whole system is broken from the ground up.

I would like to want to mine. What ever happened to ring mining?


Pretty much, this.

The entirety of the time I spend at the keyboard while mining is for gank prevention. You know there's a problem when the only reason to play the game while playing the game is to make sure no one is blowing you up for not playing the game.

Kurnautsis
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#99 - 2014-03-09 20:51:20 UTC
The only thing mining needs are proper effects and scaling them. I find it very lame that Hulk lasers are much of a hissing penpoint lasers than any other ship(/module).

It really should scale toward more impressive effects as you get better mining equipment. The current hissing laser would be good for, say mining bargers, but exhumers should really have a bit of oomf in them.
DaReaper
Net 7
Cannon.Fodder
#100 - 2014-03-10 04:18:38 UTC
Did not read all, but i guess i'm in the minority.. i enjoy mining, its what hooked me to eve. But with that said, it could use an overhaul. Ring mining, more interaction would be a bit more enjoyable at times.

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.