EVE General Discussion

Not in minerals they shouldnt.

But we have already agreed that reprocessable loot, including gun mining, constitute only a tiny % of a mission/rat/plex runners potentialincome, and have established that a sensible person "doing it right" does not even bother with them.

There is an inherent contradiction here.

Either looting is a tiny % of income, as a factor of current reprocessing for mission/rat/plex runners income, and as we agree something a sensible player doing it "right" does not even bother with.

Or that tiny % of income constitutes a significant enough yield in minerals currently that players actually SHOULD be looting and reprocessing because it is infact not tiny at all.

Which is it?

They cant both be true.

I think everyone can agree that a reduction in efficiency is warranted. However I argue the magnitude of the nerf is too great.

As to gun compression, this is already addressed by the compression and higher ore refinement efficiency. Everyone already agreees those 2 changes already in and of themselves retire the 425 trick.

Margins don't change. This I don't understand why you keep harping on about. If the item reprocs for 55% of what it used to, the reproccers are going to offer 55% of what they used to, and they'll make up their absolute market size reduction issue by redirecting 50% of their capital towards ore processing tasks (allowing for some reduction in looting).

The only fail would be holding reproc modules over the changeover but you might be able to escape some deals by spotting some old orders too and you might be able to do some tight trades when the deadline becomes close too.

Ample time to farm up standings if you think highsec pos drops will be required for the broader business, but basically compression, and reproc require people to get out there and make region orders, so the 2 jobs will be naturally suited to the same type of player.

Also I don't get why you think reproc had bad margins. When I ran orders in cat, all the competitors tended to hover around the 30% gross margin, and we'd arrange (silently without actually talking to each other) to not compete tooooooo strongly over every module type. The margin was only ever bad if you bought your dross in jita.

You need to reread what l said because that had nothing to do what what you quoted.

…which is irrelevant for the vast majority of items, and does not devalue the items themselves in any way. You can try to fudge the semantics all you like — a reduction in the reprocessing value does not devalue the item unless its only value lies in reprocessing, and that only ever holds true for ores, which won't get that treatment. It devalues a small portion of items that currently only exists as mineral sources; it has absolutely no effect on the value of the vast majority of items since they do not get their value from the reprocessing end but rather from their production process. This is handily demonstrated by the items that have no reprocessing at all and by the changes made in tiercide.

That still doesn't entail an overall increase in prices. Some items (the aforementioned mineral sources) will go down in value; everything else remains the same since, you know, the basis for their value doesn't change. Oh, and if it's a better solution to just produce more, it means there will be a supply increase, which will lower prices. No matter how you try to push it around, there will be no general price increase.


1. No, it's not false. It is, in fact, the entire reason for the change: you can alter the actual compression as much as you like, but without a margin for it work within, it will still be unused. This change creates the margin to give the compression mechanics room to breathe and a reason to exist. It's balancing 101: you can change functionality as much as you like, but if pre-existing functionality B already does it at 100% efficiency, A remains as pointless as ever. You can't turn A into a strictly better option without altering B as well. Oh, and your IRL example is not applicable to EVE, which is exactly why it's a problem that needs to be fixed.

2. It's has nothing to do with economics. It has to do with game design: one mechanic serves one purpose; a different mechanic serves a different one. Production is a separate entity from logistics and should therefore not be served by the same mechanic.

3. No-one said they were. Stop inventing strawman arguments. Extra materials were introduced as a fix to ensure that immense amount of value wasn't created out of thin air when build requirements changed. By removing the complete reversibility of production, that kludge is no longer needed — much larger changes can be made in build requirements without creating much of a problem, and the old change can be rolled back in favour of this new, much cleaner mechanism.

4. …and that doesn't change the fact that gun mining is conceptually bad design, and therefore could (and should) be reduced further, even to the point of outright removal. Moreover, just because it's a small percentage of the individual income doesn't mean it's not a problem on a systemic level.

5. By reducing their value as mineral sources, their original function as mutators and fitting options has a (very tiny, but still) chance of coming back to the surface.

6. No, the use is the same as it always was: to have an end-of-life for produced goods and to extract minerals from the mineral sources. The fact that you could use it to undo history was just bad design.

Because for the vast majority of items in the game, the reprocessed mineral value is irrelevant since they derive their value form the production process, not the end-of-life process.

Yes, or it won't give the mineral compression mechanics the room needed to breathe and to have a very clear and uncontested purpose.

Do you have absolute confidence that the reprocessing efficiency nerf is set at a correct value?

I agree with what should be fixed in your post, as well as that they should be fixed "forever", but is it certain that the nerf has the lowest possible magnitude to ensure that?

Do you however recognise what this change does to the base mineral yield of all reprocessable items in the game, and its repercussions to the margins of the reprocessing profession and skill set? In my perception, it effectively kills it as an isk making activity, amd relegates it to a correctional role for manufacturers who find they for one reason or another need to reprocess their own production in order to reapply it at a loss for a more lucrative production venture.

Though I understand and accept that necessary changes may marginalise some activities to the brink of extinction, for the overall good of the game, I would hope that efforts are made to retain Reprocessing as as valid a profession as possible. It serves many important functions as a means of sinking items from the market, as an alternative source of minerals and as an opportunistic trade profession for keeping the market "neat" by culling irrational pricing.

I simply cannot fathom why CCP continues to ruin the gaming experience for mission runners and new player miners who don't have the refine skills, nor money for implants, to mitigate the devastation being wrought by these changes.

CCP truly must hate a large percentage of their own subscription base, which is fiscal insanity.

Largely because it doesn't particularly ruin or devastate anything — it slightly reduces a very marginal part of their income that they will quickly be able to leave behind.

I run missions, anomalies and combat sites but i never loot. Blitzing is more efficient, at least for me. Now with the MTU i pick stuff like 1600 meta plates or meta guns, and not always. LPs is where the money is.

Maybe this change is a cool buff to other guys with refine/indy skills, but i don't see how this is ruining mission running.
Also, i agree with the different refining percentages between low and high sec stations because eve is suppossed to be a game where the risks have more rewards and to be honest i rarely see this, so probably this is a good step forward.

after looking at the extra materials on my dominix BPO I'd say yes it is (the old tier 1, tech 1 BS are probably the source of the upper bound on the number they could choose).