Are you sure you are talking about moon ore and not moon variants of regular ore?
oh you didnt notice the moons have been nerfed? The shields have been nerfed , the belts have been nerfed? You people deaf dumb AND blind?
Youâre a moon, a shield and a belt? Interesting. I would never have guessed.
When people say âmoon oreâ they generally mean the stuff that reprocesses to reaction inputs (colloquially, âmoon gooâ), none of which are compressable*. What you have is just mineral ore that came from a moon.
*Except most (all? I havenât checked them all but Iâd wager itâs all of them) are actually VERY compressable by way of reprocessing, which seems fine to me.
If they want to reduce stockpiles theyâre doing the opposite of what they should be doing. The best way to reduce stockpiles would be to INCREASE all mining yields by tenfold, and at the same time increase all material costs for building things tenfold, that would instantly wipe out 90% of all mineral and ore stockpiles.
Best way to remove stockpiles is something like what they are doing with the daily log in rewards dropping copy blueprints.
1 Like
Why do you need to increase mining yield if you increase material costs?
If you do both at the same time it decimates the value of all existing stockpiles without having any impact on current or future industry or mining, just moving a decimal point. Of course it would be easier to just delete the existing ore stockpiles, but the point is theyâre actually increasing the value of all pre-existing mineral stockpiles with the changes they made, anyone who was sitting on a pile of minerals saw their value increase massively.
I need that translated into math, because I think you talk â â â â â â â â , but I am not sure.
You have a stockpile of 1000 trit. It is worth 10000. You can build 10 atrons from it worth 12000. It will take 10 hours mining to get this amount.
After the *10 change they are talking about.
You still have 1000 trit.
However it is probably only worth 1000 now.
It can only build 1 atron worth 1200.
It will take 1 hours mining to get this much.
So, hours mining to build a given ship remains constant. But your stockpile is worth less.
Note. I donât agree with the approach, but that is the idea.
2 Likes
Basically this. Itâs not a suggestion, but if stockpiling is a problem and they want to reduce ore/mineral stockpiles in the game why did they inflate the value of them?
Thing is the value of your stockpile is theoretical till used. So if you want that sweet isk now you have to let your stockpile go.
Also imagine being the player who has the stockpile and CCP literally implementing inflation of 1000%.
1 Like
Quantity of ore stored or price on ore doesnât really matter.
Ore being mined adds an object to the game that has a value, but that value can also be zero. A lot of ore sat in a station doing nothing isnât really going to have any effect.
Too much ore the price will get lower and lower until some people stop mining at which point the current value will start to stabilize for awhile at least. An abundance of ore will just keep the price of ore low unless itâs being released slowly by everyone so that a value is maintained. but thatâs unlikely in this game.
All buying and selling does in this game is move currency (less fees and taxes) from one player to another.
With supply and demand there will always be a balance on an objects value, relating to the amount of supply and the amount of demand at any given time. Of course that can be manipulated by a slow release of an object for sale, which is where competition comes in to try to stop that happening.
Thank you. Now it also makes sense to me.
However. Is stockpiling an issue thats needs to be resolved in short order? I think not.
Stockpiles clearly need resolving in order to actually create scarcity. Thatâs the reason loss becomes meaningless to some Vets, because they have such large stockpiles.
But I donât think devaluing stockpiles like this is the way to go about it myself.
CCP identified where they went wrong in a recent thing, forget where, but they identified that limitless free storage anywhere including NPC stations was actually a huge design mistake from the very origins of EVE, and has slowly built up to some of the current issues & situations.
I agree. But I donât think it needs to be done in short order. Limiting the creation of new ores will resolve it without the need to inflate prices as the other guy suggested.
Mmmm, I donât think limiting the creation of new ores will resolve it. We still have more ore available than used to be available pre moon changes I believe. Because Null ores got massively buffed in mineral content at the same time.
Additionally part of the issue of stockpiles is wealth inequality. While obviously we donât want everyone having literally identical wallet sizes, thatâs going to cause people to not try, we also donât want too much inequality or that also creates stagnation, because wealth tends to lead to further wealth.
So something has to target the wealthy in such a way that the less wealthy arenât as impacted. Limiting ore creation if anything is going to impact more on the less wealthy, as it impacts âcost of livingâ effectively, though yes, itâs not like you âneedâ things in EVE, but there is a basic cost of doing business, and mineral prices rising (They are the highest relatively they have ever been in the entire history of EVE right now I believe if I read the MER right) is going to impact that basic cost.
Note, Limiting ores is not a bad thing, I just donât think it will address the stockpile issue, that will need a separate solution.
But I mean a real limit on ore creation at a level that it will decrease stockpiles. Not a nerf here and a buff there to even things out.
As a real life socialist I agree. Do I agree within the realms of EvE? I am not convinced what you say ("too much inequality or that also creates stagnation) holds true.
Perhaps we need more than one solution if stockpiles arenât emptied quick enough by ore scarcity alone.
EVEâs economy does follow real world principles, but doubly so in some ways.
If you are so wealthy you can loose T2/T3 ships all day, but I struggle to afford 1 or 2 T1 ships, what happens is I die to you, because you have better ships, you end up loosing nothing anyway, and I then give up because I canât beat you. This can best be seen in the usual response to the âeliteâ high sec wardeccers and people just logging off. (Note, This is not a comment against war deccers, just about the usual economic disparity between them and their targets most times)
Not only that, but you can price me out of markets, because you can pay more for the same product.
Yes itâs impossible to shut someone down completely if they want to keep going, but it is possible to starve them to the point where it becomes more slog than most will bother with just to get to be remotely competitive. And this can lose us good players, because plenty of good players will just look at too much inequality and not bother, that doesnât make them carebears, it just makes them not prepared to take on 100 to 1 odds situations. Normally we call that smart after all.
And thatâs whatâs going to happen if we try and address the large stockpiles purely by scarcity, by the time it really hurts the people with big stockpiles, everyone else is a shrivelled husk. Ok, maybe if we are looking at a 10 year timeline to deplete stockpiles that wonât happen.
And I agree, we need more than one solution, it is a complex problem and there isnât a golden bullet to solve the issue. So any step forward is a good step.
Thank you. I understand better now why wealth inequality also in EvE can be a problem. It is indeed complex and I see there isnât a âgolden bulletâ solution.
Another step could be increasing the mineral costs of higher tier ships, modules and other items.