These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Science & Industry

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

High end mineral crisis

First post
Author
Felicity Love
Doomheim
#201 - 2014-12-13 02:10:10 UTC
The only "crisis" here is the over supply created by ISBoxing mining fleets in Null... desperately trying to pay their "rent"...

Soon... that will be fixed... and OMG you entitled brats will have to make some effort... sucks to have to play fair, don't it ?

Twisted

"EVE is dying." -- The Four Forum Trolls of the Apocalypse.   ( Pick four, any four. They all smell.  )

Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#202 - 2014-12-13 06:16:25 UTC
We don't need more veldspar in nullsec anomalies. We need anomalies without fixed ratios of ore, so people can truely cherrypick the valuable stuff without having to mine the worthless stuff to get more of the good stuff
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#203 - 2014-12-14 11:47:38 UTC
Gilbaron wrote:
We don't need more veldspar in nullsec anomalies. We need anomalies without fixed ratios of ore, so people can truely cherrypick the valuable stuff without having to mine the worthless stuff to get more of the good stuff


Mynnna or Querns actually suggested another idea as well- anoms should be of a single or few types rather than containing nearly every type of ore. Instead of having small -> gigantic, you'd have "Veldspar" or "Crokite" or "Kernite" anoms with mostly that type of ore. That would allow a better adaptation to the market rather than having belts that respawn infinitely with a huge surplus of high end minerals.

Re: the other post- it doesn't matter if ore is being mined by ISBoxers in null- even once some mining accounts die out, the base supply of all minerals will drop (raising price), but the null anomalies will still have a huge imbalance. Those that are still mining will still have a surplus of high ends compared to the low ends needed for production.
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#204 - 2014-12-14 13:08:38 UTC
Another suggestion in terms of pricing/demand/supply :

In RL and thinking in terms of the wool and milk trade, although there are probably other examples, when prices have collapsed in the past the stock was destroyed rather than take it to the market. Would it be an option to 'trash' excess amounts of high end minerals that had been mined to keep stocks lower and hence prices stable or higher Question

" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. " Rick. " Find out what ? " Abraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. " Rick. Season four.   ' The Walking Dead. ' .

Zedutchman
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#205 - 2014-12-14 14:47:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Zedutchman
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:
Another suggestion in terms of pricing/demand/supply :

In RL and thinking in terms of the wool and milk trade, although there are probably other examples, when prices have collapsed in the past the stock was destroyed rather than take it to the market. Would it be an option to 'trash' excess amounts of high end minerals that had been mined to keep stocks lower and hence prices stable or higher Question


It's a little diffrent in EvE as there are no commodities that "expire". You can just store them forever and wait for a price reversal.

I'm guessing that's what most people are doing atm.


The problem is that there arn't that many high-end minerals being consumed. And some of those stock-piles are really..... really big. Like months and months worth of all the Mega and zydrain that's consumed in the whole game.


I'd be VERY interested to see how much megacyte and arkanor are just setting in stations. My guess is that it's about a years worth of supply for the whole Eve-verse.


If CCP doesn't step in soon the market for high-ends is going to be ruined for years to come.
Felicity Love
Doomheim
#206 - 2014-12-14 17:24:53 UTC
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:
Another suggestion in terms of pricing/demand/supply :

Would it be an option to 'trash' excess amounts of high end minerals that had been mined to keep stocks lower and hence prices stable or higher Question


In RL marketing boards, somebody ends up paying even if you "trash" surplus inventory to artificially inflate prices -- and it's usually the taxpayers in the form of government subsidies.

But, by all means, "trash" your surplus minerals... the guys with all the "Sell" orders in major hubs will luv you for it.

Roll



"EVE is dying." -- The Four Forum Trolls of the Apocalypse.   ( Pick four, any four. They all smell.  )

Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#207 - 2014-12-15 00:47:18 UTC
CCP could "trash" minerals by inflating the demand for them

however, that won't really fix the underlying problem, just make another ore worthless.
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#208 - 2014-12-15 18:41:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Omniblivion
They could always just introduce mineral alchemy as well- converting excess mega/zyd into other lowend minerals Cool

Edit: They would just have to make sure the conversion ratio is established at a base line that matches the aggregate consumption of minerals- if it's 1024/512/256/128/64/32/16, they would need to make the ratio a base of 16 mega : 256 mex or something of the sort.
Derath Ellecon
Lotek Academy
#209 - 2014-12-15 19:29:48 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
This argument is so short sighted it's amusing. And wrong. Go read some of the previous posts if you want to know why.


I did. There are so many inconsistencies with your arguments it is laughable.

For one it sounds that the low ends are in 0.0, just in the form of belts instead of anoms? But these aren't worth it for the 0.0 miner somehow? Fine. They can go fly back to their barge in HS (I'm sure every serious miner has at least some retrievers back in HS they can go mine with). I mean if its better isk/hr to do that, it is a valid choice to do so.

They could say F**K mining and do what other 0.0 residents do, which is shoot red crosses and, as you say, make better isk/hr.

Both of these choices lowers the mining of high end minerals to help the oversupply issue.

Now I am not saying anything about what might or should be done long term to help bolster 0.0 industry, but these are choices that can be made TODAY to help the pricing crisis the OP brought up, which is a better solution to the OP's suggestion that ships be changed to require more high ends to build.

By the way, your daytripping gas harvesting idea is bunk. There are only 2 gasses where you can break 100mil/hr at current prices. And those gases are only found in the 2 most difficult sites, pretty much only found in C5/C6 space. Both WH classes don't have k-space statics. So first you have to find one, scan it, get a cloud, hope the locals aren't online before you can even think about harvesting the gas. And then 15min later you will get a spawn that can instapop any venture on grid.

Even if you manage to pull of a ninja harvest without dying (yes I believe it is still possible), if you factor in all that it takes to find the cloud, setup proper bookmarks, and then harvest in peace, plus haul out and to market, it isn't going to be anywhere close to 100mil/hr anymore.


Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#210 - 2014-12-15 20:11:41 UTC
Derath Ellecon wrote:

I did. There are so many inconsistencies with your arguments it is laughable.

For one it sounds that the low ends are in 0.0, just in the form of belts instead of anoms? But these aren't worth it for the 0.0 miner somehow? Fine. They can go fly back to their barge in HS (I'm sure every serious miner has at least some retrievers back in HS they can go mine with). I mean if its better isk/hr to do that, it is a valid choice to do so.

They could say F**K mining and do what other 0.0 residents do, which is shoot red crosses and, as you say, make better isk/hr.

Both of these choices lowers the mining of high end minerals to help the oversupply issue.

Now I am not saying anything about what might or should be done long term to help bolster 0.0 industry, but these are choices that can be made TODAY to help the pricing crisis the OP brought up, which is a better solution to the OP's suggestion that ships be changed to require more high ends to build.

By the way, your daytripping gas harvesting idea is bunk. There are only 2 gasses where you can break 100mil/hr at current prices. And those gases are only found in the 2 most difficult sites, pretty much only found in C5/C6 space. Both WH classes don't have k-space statics. So first you have to find one, scan it, get a cloud, hope the locals aren't online before you can even think about harvesting the gas. And then 15min later you will get a spawn that can instapop any venture on grid.

Even if you manage to pull of a ninja harvest without dying (yes I believe it is still possible), if you factor in all that it takes to find the cloud, setup proper bookmarks, and then harvest in peace, plus haul out and to market, it isn't going to be anywhere close to 100mil/hr anymore.


Who is your dealer and what is their number, this sounds like some pretty good stuff you're on.
LiquidDreams
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#211 - 2014-12-16 07:50:50 UTC  |  Edited by: LiquidDreams
no the Marked do not fix High endt ore only thing to do aboudt it make Blueprints use more Rare ore drops need to cost more Zydrine Morphite Nocxium Megacyte only way to fix this

still the bad part for miners are we have a bad income vs mission runners ratting people i feel i need to stop play miner now becouse the hours i have to use vs 1 there fly an do belt running ern 60 mil hour i make high end ore 30 mil hour make the it worth be a miner when you have to spend så many hours an the ships are way to exspendsv Hulk shiff vs bad bonus vs covetor an procure need to fix this so there is a 10% an 20% betrine the hulk an covetor same with the other ships there is no good bonus other then cargo its uselss an bad an we work to hard bigger rick to get ganket an we have to work 5 times so hard to pay for a mack siff hulk if we lose them is not fair is bad the CPP fails so hard to see this problem or alest make the ships cheaper to make.. so we can afford to lose the ships also,,

you can not afk mine in lowsec
you have to keep you eyes on the screen all the time so is crap we do noting we have to sit an look an on the screen all the time so we dont get ganket..
Sequester Risalo
German Corps of Engineers 17
Federation of Respect Honor Passion Alliance.
#212 - 2014-12-16 12:47:42 UTC
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:
Would it be an option to 'trash' excess amounts of high end minerals that had been mined to keep stocks lower and hence prices stable or higher Question


I was thinking the same, remembering how copper coins are regularly trashed in other games like EQ to keep more of the valuable gold coins. If the ores were really as worth- and useless as the whiners wish to make believe, this would be a viable solution. Every miner can trash what is in his cargo hold in EVE as well. However, the high end minerals and ores are still much too valuable to simply throw them away.

I also learned from this thread that there are several other ways to counter the so called crisis. But mining in wormholes, mining in belts, cherrypicking anomalies and trading with high sec are all discarded as they are less efficient and less profitable than mining complete anomalies. As long as this is the case there is no crisis at all. So can we please let this topic die in peace?
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries
VOID Intergalactic Forces
#213 - 2014-12-17 21:28:41 UTC
people are being forced to null from gankers but yet the minerals are ending up back in empire, so ofcourse high ends will die since they were also the ones to go for to offset the risk vs reward of an interceptor or some cloaky ending up in your belt

"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith

Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#214 - 2014-12-17 22:54:42 UTC
Sequester Risalo wrote:
But mining in wormholes, mining in belts, cherrypicking anomalies and trading with high sec are all discarded as they are less efficient and less profitable than mining complete anomalies. As long as this is the case there is no crisis at all. So can we please let this topic die in peace?


  • mining in wormholes - Can you fully control the hole, are there ore anoms in the hole? If you can, why mine, if not WHY MINE? Risk/reward bad for mining in a WH, not that it doesn't happen, just why?

  • mining in belts - it does happen, you don't have to worry about cycling the belt, just mine what you're short on. Except when you pop the rock it doesn't automatically respawn with the exact same ammount that you started with, you have to wait for downtime for them to respawn, and they respawn as tiny little roids like in highsec, so you have to move around more. It's like trying to drain a olympic pool with a straw.

  • cherrypicking anomalies - Oh hey, lets wait three days for this anomaly to despawn so we can get more of the ores we want, all the while our inustry index goes down. Honestly you'd be better off mining in the belts.

  • trading with high sec - Already happening, but due to space constraints on JFs you get the ONE thing you really need to maximise m3/ly, the rest you better make up yourself. Also screw you, we don't want to come to you with our hat in hand saying "Please sir, more."


All of these "solutions" are utter rubbish, have been pointed out repeatedly as being complete and utter rubbish, except the buying in highsec and JFing it up. Yet these "solutions" keep cropping up in this thread, because for some strange reason you think we haven't tried those "solutions" before, and we keep telling you from experience, why your "solution" really doesn't 'solve' anything.

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 

Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#215 - 2014-12-18 00:21:50 UTC
The bottom line is that null anomalies are still horribly imbalanced. They are the "end game" of mining because of the density of the rocks and the respawning belts. That said, due to the oversupply of high ends in these belts, the value of the high end ores has plummeted, making mining one of the least profitable activities in the game.

If CCP wants to do anything else towards localized production in null, they need to change these belts so that there is not a gigantic oversupply of high ends. Otherwise, they don't need to do anything, and people that are horrible at math will continue to mine in empire or wherever and give us the minerals we need.
Sequester Risalo
German Corps of Engineers 17
Federation of Respect Honor Passion Alliance.
#216 - 2014-12-18 12:40:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Sequester Risalo
Falin Whalen wrote:
Sequester Risalo wrote:
But mining in wormholes, mining in belts, cherrypicking anomalies and trading with high sec are all discarded as they are less efficient and less profitable than mining complete anomalies. As long as this is the case there is no crisis at all. So can we please let this topic die in peace?


  • mining in wormholes - Can you fully control the hole, are there ore anoms in the hole? If you can, why mine, if not WHY MINE? Risk/reward bad for mining in a WH, not that it doesn't happen, just why?

  • mining in belts - it does happen, you don't have to worry about cycling the belt, just mine what you're short on. Except when you pop the rock it doesn't automatically respawn with the exact same ammount that you started with, you have to wait for downtime for them to respawn, and they respawn as tiny little roids like in highsec, so you have to move around more. It's like trying to drain a olympic pool with a straw.

  • cherrypicking anomalies - Oh hey, lets wait three days for this anomaly to despawn so we can get more of the ores we want, all the while our inustry index goes down. Honestly you'd be better off mining in the belts.

  • trading with high sec - Already happening, but due to space constraints on JFs you get the ONE thing you really need to maximise m3/ly, the rest you better make up yourself. Also screw you, we don't want to come to you with our hat in hand saying "Please sir, more."


All of these "solutions" are utter rubbish, have been pointed out repeatedly as being complete and utter rubbish, except the buying in highsec and JFing it up. Yet these "solutions" keep cropping up in this thread, because for some strange reason you think we haven't tried those "solutions" before, and we keep telling you from experience, why your "solution" really doesn't 'solve' anything.



I am capable of reading and fully understand your points. However you don't seem to understand mine.

What my options have in common is that they do not feed the perceived high end ore crisis. If you pick the one mining option that feeds the percieved high end ore crisis over a bunch of others that don't, please tell me who is to blame? To me its seems that there is no crisis as you are capable of mitigating it. You simply don't do this because mitigating the perceived crisis would have some severe drawbacks. This is fine. Just stop moaning and live with consequences of your actions.
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#217 - 2014-12-18 19:05:38 UTC
Sequester Risalo wrote:

I am capable of reading and fully understand your points. However you don't seem to understand mine.

What my options have in common is that they do not feed the perceived high end ore crisis. If you pick the one mining option that feeds the percieved hich end ore crisis over a bunch of others that don't, please tell me who is to blame? To me its seems that there is no crisis as you are capable of mitigating it. You simply don't do this because mitigating the perceived crisis would have some severe drawbacks. This is fine. Just stop moaning and live with consequences of your actions.


The problem with your argument is that it is so incredibly short sighted, and frankly- dumb. You and a few other people have suggested to just "cherry pick the other ores you need" or "mine in null belts" or other related items. The issue here is that mining in null anomalies is literally twice as profitable (if not more) than mining in any other place- provided you have more than one or two miners. This number skyrockets the more miners you have.

So, the place that is by far the most profitable overall is the same place that is causing the gigantic flood of high end minerals. That is why there is a "high end mineral crisis" because there are simply too many sources of high end minerals. CCP even changed the high end ores to provide some lowend minerals as well, which only adds to the issue because we continue to extract significantly more high end minerals than all production in eve can utilize.

Suggesting that people just "mine in null belts" is exactly the same as me saying to only run level 3 missions in high sec instead of level 4s so that you can cut down your ammunition cost. It is just an awful argument.

As a note: when I say "most profitable overall" just means that the mining has the most income per hour- which still sucks for mining. A perfect hulk pilot supported by a perfect booster and a hauler can barely make 50-60 mil an hour mining in null- that's if you can mine for hours at a time without being interrupted by roaming gangs.
Hippinse
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#218 - 2014-12-18 22:18:12 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
Sequester Risalo wrote:

I am capable of reading and fully understand your points. However you don't seem to understand mine.

What my options have in common is that they do not feed the perceived high end ore crisis. If you pick the one mining option that feeds the percieved hich end ore crisis over a bunch of others that don't, please tell me who is to blame? To me its seems that there is no crisis as you are capable of mitigating it. You simply don't do this because mitigating the perceived crisis would have some severe drawbacks. This is fine. Just stop moaning and live with consequences of your actions.


The problem with your argument is that it is so incredibly short sighted, and frankly- dumb. You and a few other people have suggested to just "cherry pick the other ores you need" or "mine in null belts" or other related items. The issue here is that mining in null anomalies is literally twice as profitable (if not more) than mining in any other place- provided you have more than one or two miners. This number skyrockets the more miners you have.

So, the place that is by far the most profitable overall is the same place that is causing the gigantic flood of high end minerals. That is why there is a "high end mineral crisis" because there are simply too many sources of high end minerals. CCP even changed the high end ores to provide some lowend minerals as well, which only adds to the issue because we continue to extract significantly more high end minerals than all production in eve can utilize.

Suggesting that people just "mine in null belts" is exactly the same as me saying to only run level 3 missions in high sec instead of level 4s so that you can cut down your ammunition cost. It is just an awful argument.

As a note: when I say "most profitable overall" just means that the mining has the most income per hour- which still sucks for mining. A perfect hulk pilot supported by a perfect booster and a hauler can barely make 50-60 mil an hour mining in null- that's if you can mine for hours at a time without being interrupted by roaming gangs.


Everyone else has to make choices. Actions/decisions have consequences. You're advocating for the removal of said drawbacks while stating that no other courses of action will be explored.

What kind of reaction did you expect?
Hippinse
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#219 - 2014-12-18 22:27:14 UTC
Let's try this another way: What makes this particular problem for a particular subset of the overall Eve population a "drone assist"-esque type of problem? How does this situation hurt the overall game?

I can live with the ishtar nerfs even though I fly an ishtar at times. I can live with the drone nerfs even though drones are my primary dps when I mission. But without a better (or any) explanation of how this imbalance hurts the overall game, this appears to be a request for the devs to take isk out of my wallet and put it into yours. So, again, why should I agree with you?
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#220 - 2014-12-18 22:55:18 UTC
Hippinse wrote:

Everyone else has to make choices. Actions/decisions have consequences. You're advocating for the removal of said drawbacks while stating that no other courses of action will be explored.

What kind of reaction did you expect?


That's the thing- there are no "real" choices in null mining. That is why we're saying that a change needs to be made.

Sure, you could "choose" to mine at a null belt- the same way a mission runner could "choose" to run a level 2 or 3 mission instead of a level 4 mission. You just wouldn't run a level 2 if you have access to and can run a level 4 for the same faction.

Null anomalies are the "level 4 missions" of the mining profession. In their very nature, they are providing a huge surplus of high end minerals to the point that there is literally no reason to go to any other source of minerals in null because there is no incentive to.

The suggestion here isn't to just give us more stuff. It is to remove the bulk of the high end ore from null anoms. That's it. This means that belts and scannable ore sites become valuable again, for everyone, if they want to cherry pick or scout out "rare" ore.

Right now, arkonor is the second least valuable ore in the game. Why? Its primary value component comes from Megacyte. Arkonor is readily available in every null anom. Because you have to cycle anoms to get them to respawn for more low end ores, you have to burn through the arkonor. This leads to a huge supply of Megacyte- vastly more than any production in eve can consume.

This has resulted in the most "valuable" ores in the game becoming garbage. You can obtain more minerals of any type more quickly in an ore anom than anywhere else in null. There is zero incentive to cherry pick unless you are running one or two miners or if you want to eat a huge wealth loss over time.

Therefore, the suggestions are not to "remove the drawbacks" of null anoms- null anoms are already the best in every circumstance. The suggestion is to balance the null anoms so that there is a point for miners to seek out rare ores, while allowing consistent income to still be made at null anoms.