I think we must be reading the changes differently. It’s admittedly ambiguous but the way I’m reading it, it’s a reduction in the yield that a structure can extract from a moon which will mean less ore per pull.
Some of the names of the ores are hilariously bad.
| Mordunium | Ytirium | Eifyrium | Ducinium |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plum Mordunium | Bootleg Ytirium | Doped Eifyrium | Noble Ducinium |
| Prize Mordunium | Firewater Ytirium | Boosted Eifyrium | Royal Ducinium |
| Plunder Mordunium | Moonshine Ytirium | Augmented Eifyrium | Imperial Ducinium |
Yes. This means per pull, you get less volume of ore if you’re able to clear the field at all. This is not the same as “less reward” since the changes are meant to push up market prices for the moon ore, and therefore on balance increase the value of having T2 stuff.
Smart miners will figure out how to stretch the less volume for more reward, whatever their “reward” goal motivations are for mining in the first place. Maybe they will figure out how to take over a neighbor’s moon who is now discouraged. Now they’re up 150% and a competitor is gone and they can monopolize the market just a bit more.
The only people it hurts are groups that look at a big pile of rocks in the hangar and are trying to get that number to go up as fast as possible to as high as possible, and define “reward” as “sheer quantity of rocks in my pile”. I’m not sure anyone can beat Chribba at that. Myth says if he ever sold his Veldspar ore the game’s market would crash for half a year.
Except where hi-sec ganking is concerned, of course. Since gankers are effectively safe until they find a target, at which point they can score ratios of better than 30-to-1 cost vs. reward.
This is one of the most significant points I’ve read this week. Almost nobody arguing against a certain playstyle can justify their numbers with data or observed trends. Not the “the economy needs ganking” people or the “economy would collapse if hi-sec were safer” or the “ganking drives new players away” or even the “PvP drives the EVE economy” people.
They mostly trot out various tired, oft-repeated statements as if they were facts. But the reality is, it simply annoys them to see other players playing in a way that doesn’t benefit them. And that annoyance builds up every time they see or hear of them. It’s why they end up saying “This playstyle or these players should be removed”. It may be terrible for the game, but at least they won’t be annoyed all the time. And unfortunately, CCP knows no better than these sorts of complainers.
It’s hilarious that you will argue fiercely against someone analyzing his own stats to come up with some sort of observation/conclusion, but then feel it’s perfectly fine to pull a statement like this out of thin air.
It doesn’t matter what “a lot of people” want. In the end it only matters what CCP wants. All the things people keep pointing at and saying “carebears did this to the game” and “gankers did that” is actually “CCP did this for their own reasons”.
“Make high sec dangerous again” won’t result in more gameplay, but less. I’d almost prefer to see it happen, in fact, because the resultant loss of income would likely teach CCP more than any amount of forum posts.
Players and CCP truly, desperately need to stop falling into the trap of “I don’t like what those people are doing, they need to be nerfed until they do the things I want them do.”
EVE needs more options supporting more playstyles. Not more trying to herd cats into your particular favorite corral.
It is less reward unless you were already overpulling. It’s unlikely that prices of raw materials are going to go up as much as the overall yield is coming down.
Just like smart PvP players figured out how to stretch fewer targets into more reward? I’ll remember that next time they nerf PvP and you complain about it.
Your position is “Even though this is a nerf, it’s not a nerf and if you think it is you’re just dumb and can’t capitalise on it”. It’s objectively a nerf to moon mining, regardless of how much you try to spin it. That will be bad for groups who mine moons in and out of highsec, some of which will quit or disband. That in turn is bad for social interaction in the game. I would be trying to encourage moon mining, not discourage it.
Despite your words, I’d like to give you more credit at being able to discern nuance, than really earnestly take you at face value believing that “less PVP targets in space” is wholly and in good-faith comparable to “less ore in a hangar”. So, please be nice to me for glossing over this one.
Unlike Kezrai, you at least directly put words in my mouth. I prefer direct adversity than vagueposting insults.
No. I think it is “a change”. “Nerf” and “buff” are subjective, and I thought we were doing pretty well at being respectful of our different opinions, and recognizing we fundamentally disagree.
There is literally a CSM thread started by Snuff on lowsec moon mining and how nobody is doing it because the prices are too low. Those groups are trying to get back their moon mining players and see an increase in player activity with this change. Their request is at direct odds with your interpretation, so it makes me skeptical that there is one and only one net effect.
I think far more likely is some people will sub fewer multibox accounts so they don’t need to pull in the last 25% volume. That is far easier than 7 days pulling down a structure to quit. Also likely: they will sell the building. A new group might take over, or an existing one expand, and need more dudes for the additional 50% ore pull beyond (1 structure @ 100% vs 2 structures @ 75%).
I think it is incredibly presumptuous to look at a number, ignore the people-dimension, and say “number go down, people leave”. I feel what gets lost in these conversations is looking at them within context of the broader game of people instead of a spreadsheet, which hints at the philosophical division of gaming mentality I mentioned before:
As much as you and Kezrai like to imagine I’m sitting here going “hee hee hee look at those ding dong dingaling miners”, projecting that upon me is probably because there’s just such a different philosophical approach to handling Eve Online and I accidentally stepped on a nerve there. For my part in that I am sorry. However, to be honest, I don’t believe my viewpoint is changing as I don’t find either of your rather reductive approaches (and speckled insults) to your arguments particularly compelling.
The only difference is that one matters more to you than the other.
So then any time someone complains about a nerf to PvP, I can say “its not a nerf, it’s just a change” and dismiss their concerns, right? That’ll end well.
So what? This change isn’t going to significantly impact prices enough to make people risk more mining ships in low sec. CCP needs to add more carrot, not more stick. If they want to drive up T2 material prices then they need to encourage T2 production and consumption.
For T1, they’ve added paragon agents to drive up demand in a bit of a hamfisted attempt to drive up industry, at worst they could do similar for T2. It’d be better if they tried to drive consumption through conflict though. Scarcity has overwhelmingly failed because it didn’t drive conflict. People didn’t fight over resources, they just stopped spending them. Same thing here. If people weren’t fighting over a moon yesterday they are unlikely to fight over 75% of that moon tomorrow.
Making a very large assumption that the only reason they multibox is to mine moons.
You’re doing the same but in the opposite direction. And really all I’m saying is that nerfs drive lower activity, which has always been true.
Come now, Io. Retreating into vague allusions when your argument is called into question is pretty low-rent. In the other thread, you said:
and I re-phrased that as:
That’s a pretty clear paraphrase and doesn’t impute anything you didn’t directly imply. (And if you’ve found any ‘insults’ in my recent replies, that’s news to me.)
And to argue so strongly against the validity of a guy who did a pretty fair job analyzing his own stats and doing what research he was able, and then make baldly unsupported statements like:
only means you’re very comfortable holding viewpoints you disagree with to a completely different standard than your own.
You’re a good debater, overall, and more intellectually honest than 95% on these forums. But you’ve still got clear bias and are quite willing to bend the argument in it’s favor.
A cleverly worded argument that doesn’t do the game any good, is just as bad as bad-faith or ‘fallacious’ arguments that do the same.
I assure you they’re not my quotes. If I ever wrote anything like that, even as a troll, when a rare moment of lucid sobriety would come along, I’d probably take my own life.
Regardless, I’m under no illusion that the game isn’t moving in that direction, and that EVE’s final destination is the generic raiding + PvP arenas formula that is the bedrock of MMO gaming. This should be fairly evident to anyone by this point by looking at the changes made to the game over the last half decade, and those still being announced, like all of the ganking/piracy nerfs, PvE turn-in quests, instanced mining areas for holiday events, the upcoming instanced 25-man faction warfare battlegrounds, etc. etc.
CCP wants that WoW cash, and I don’t really blame them; they’re a business after all. I just hope someone else is able to make a new EVE Online, a true open-world PvP MMO like it was during its first decade, but it certainly won’t be one of the current industry players, since they all have boards to report quarterly earnings to.
Okay, where and how do i find this new ore???
Google knows:
Not sure if others are seeing this but is seems that Resources Realigned didn’t have the expected impact on the markets. For example, I see that isogen has actually gone up in recent months and not down.
As to where these new belts are supposed to spawn, I have only heard and seen them in high sec .5 systems neighboring a low sec system, as described, but I have failed to see them spawn in null sec or other AO blue star systems. Has anyone seen these belts in other places ? Just wondering if I just have bad luck finding them in null space.
My PI stock holdings have doubled in isk value in less than a year.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.