You’re not having a good day with numbers, are you?
Yeah, lemme give you a great counter-example from actual EVE:
Capital ships.
CCP’s changes to capital and supercapital production raised the prices of capitals and supers. Higher prices == more money for producers, right?
Nope.
Higher prices == less demand == it’s no longer profitable to make them, because nobody’s buying them at the build cost now.
Obviously, it’ll take a lot for that to happen to subcaps, but… don’t go taking the ‘there will always be the demand to support this’ for granted. The more people just stop playing—even if they don’t unsub yet—the more the demand for everything shrinks.
Eve is a game. People can simply throw their hands up and say screw it. I did with all 11 of my accounts a year ago. I’m not required to buy ‘your’ overpriced ship just to keep living anymore. There is a point where critical mass hits and the game dies. CCP is dangerously close to that. I just don’t think they’re smart enough to realize it.
they did that because super proliferation got silly, and losses were entirely meaningless. Would you agree that super caps had gotten silly due to massive grinding and stockpiles?
They are two different issues that are indirectly linked
Despite you not knowing the shape and design of current roid-belts, an active miner will leave the mining grid with that many players to sucessfully gank his current barge/exhumer + an eventual scout in local. (wich will be impossible with the upcoming changes because of locked in place orcas). as the only defense working for an active miner is to be preemptive. the attacker beeing on d-scan is to late to survive.
It doesn’t matter why they did it. They made a change that mirrors your suggested pattern of economic activity, and got a result directly contradicting your conclusions.
Do not ignore the rest of that. A year ago, we were worried that EVE was only averaging 30k people online. Now it’s a full 33% below that. How low does it go before it starts to lose critical mass? Well, no. It already has. Listen to the complaints of hunters who can’t find targets, roaming gangs that can’t find people to fight, etc. So how low, instead, is unrecoverable? I suspect it’s higher than many think.
My personal preferred play style got murdered about a decade ago and had been made more difficult with each and every patch and change where, super conveniently, “side effects” of changes massively affected my play style. Back then I ran 6 accounts to do “solo” pvp (mostly wardeccing large groups).
Changes were needed but they were not the changed that should have been implemented. I cared, I raged, I cried, I accepted, I adjusted.
Now I run 2 accounts and don’t invest too much, not mentally nor financially. I mostly do solo pvp in various forms, some forms of PVE, I coop run a WH corp with a group of 5 folks running “our own” WH system and I chill and chat.
EVE is a fickle mistress, adjust you expectations and investment and it’s all fine.
No, what we have been talking about is mining safety in high sec, which is not the same as “we need to stop super caps being ■■■■■■■■ in null”. Different situation, different reasons, not directly related.
You mean after the war stopped so people/alts instantly got bored and stopped logging in, and people going back to work after having been inside due to covid?
Not at all. The issue of ‘why did they do it?’ is relevant to the question of ‘did this achieve their goal?’. It is not relevant to the question of ‘what were the effects of this change?’
And, in fact, their goal, according to direct conversations w/Rattati, was not aimed at supercapital proliferation. That genie is out of the bottle. You can’t just turn off the spigot and say ‘problem solved’, because it’s clearly not—in fact, it’s only exacerbated. Instead of ‘supercapitals now only exist in a reasonable number across New Eden, and stagnation is lessened’, you end up with ‘godawfully large fleets of supercapitals exist in the hands of people who already have massive amounts of income and power in nullsec. Newer groups attempting to gain a foothold in null cannot get their hands on the tools they need to secure that foothold, and so the existing power strata becomes even more hardened and calcified’.
Rather, their goal was to attempt to make other parts of industrial activity—such as PI—more profitable through increased demand. The capital/supercapital production part of that equation, by crashing demand, has not achieved that goal.
That analysis, however, was not relevant to the point I was making, so I decided to avoid adding it in, electing rather to remain focused and succinct.
No, what I responded to was your claim that if mining isn’t profitable, supply will dry up and prices will rise until it is:
And this claim remains demonstrably… questionable, based on the results we’ve already seen.
It’s kinda funny how you think that at all undermines my point. EVE needs to attract players, not drive them off so that we can achieve ‘If more miners would stop mining…’
We get it. You are a disappointed ganker and you are afraid of posting under your main.
You would love for CCP to adapt to your wishes, i.e. make it easier for you to destroy other player’s game - fine, you’ve made your point.
But you should also know that after repeating the same thing for the millionth time, you get boring.
And, after all, you don’t have what it takes to put your face on your words, so why should anyone care?
Aisha will answer for herself, Peter, but I just wanted to address this.
Sasha is (or was) my ganking main. But I have more than one ‘main’. I have a main for scouting, a main for missioning, a main for - but I’d better stop there; Opsec, you know…
That was some good intention.
Now, after the update on barges, I’ve just checked on Sisi a pretty standard Procurer fit.
I get 20% reduction in EHP, mostly due to the loss of 2 mid slots.
That does not include the penalization due to increased sig, reduced speed, reduced agility.
That doesn’t look like the intention you announced, does it?
Main point is: the Procurer is supposed to be a tanky miner ship, targeted at some clear mining segment. Penalizing its main characteristic effectively reduces the player’s option of that mining segment. What’s the good of it?
It looks like another step towards narrowing the scope of the game from a sandbox ecosystem to a pvp pit. Some may like it, but all in all it gets less interesting.
Perhaps I’m being dense, (I’m not the smartest dude alive)but I don’t understand what you’re saying with that quote. I didn’t say you couldn’t/wouldn’t fit both, or depending on the size couldn’t/wouldn’t have multiple CS’s running various links. Just that if you had to pick 1, you’d pick yield. I think the essence of the preceding post was the Orca is already overburdned with jobs, which I agree with and why I would like to see the RR shifted off it.
If I’m being dense, explain to me like I’m 5 because I’m confused.
EVE is about choices. If a msision runner wouldn’t have to worry about tank then he could focus fully on mad dps and damage application, but he HAS to so he can’t. He has to find a good medium between tank, dps and application.
Same for the Orca: you want to run shield links, mining links, a tractorbeam and remote shield reps (if you’re active and want to increase your miner’s safety, which was the point of that conversation).
So IF you have to make choices, and you do, and IF you want to fit remote shield reps (which is that that whole back and forth was about) THEN you can really only run ONE mining link which thus is the yield one.
If you don’t care about remote shield reps, which is fine, then of course it doesn’t matter and you can add all the links you want.
it was more of a rhetorical question based on a perfect assist from your side to underline my issues with this patch and that those are not limited to the afk or even self mine capability of the orca (wich i couldn´t care less about) but the actively played orca in a ship-conglomerat and its decreased usability.
and we ar back at step one.
this patch is ment to increase the support(centric)role of the orca.
and this will be done by geting rid of its support options and potential.
wich makes absolutly noe sense at all.
its like a patch ment to increase the dmg of mission runners by reducing the npc resists by 10% while limiting the highslot use in misson-sites to one.
