Resource Redistribution Update

[Ramona_McCandless]

Well, what would you suggest?

[safira_jomita]

As a start not forcing ppl into stuff they don’t want to do, like ess. If they need to bounties go down, just lower then, or.even better make no bounties , but reward for ratting be only loot/salvage AS START

[Ramona_McCandless]

Im very very much in favour of that idea.

[SleepLacker]

It’s been suggested countless times to swap rat bounties for the dogtags they already drop, but this, and lots of other good feedback falls under deaf ears.

[Drone_16]

I would just like to say that having an individual that understands the issues that this game has, who understands what solutions are necessary AND who takes the time to write about it is an amazing boon to all of us.

Thank you for taking the time to advocate for the health of this game we all (irrationally?) seem to love so much. It’s a pleasure reading your work; it’s a lesson in articulation, focus, intellect and competence.

[pRyodon]

My comment is regarding the “Shortage Phase”…

Every good economist worth his salt knows that austerity does not work. If null mega corps have too many resources restrict the resources IN NULL… Don’t make everyone else suffer because a few fat cats are too filthy rich.

[Ramona_McCandless]

What would stop them then going to where resources werent restricted to farm them?

[Gerard_Amatin]

@pRyodon

If null mega corps have too many resources restrict the resources IN NULL… Don’t make everyone else suffer because a few fat cats are too filthy rich.

This works, if null mega corps are the intended target (and not just all of EVE as was my impression) and if null mega corps are somehow also restricted from switching to their high sec miners to mine ice and ore there, now that null resources are restricted.

[Dictateur_Imperator]

Hello,

CCP if i propose you a better ressource redistribution update who give a role to all part of space and permit to create incesitive to war in null and LS. Do you will read it or i don’t need to write it. (by better i means avoid to have player bored, and give to each part of space a part of important content … who will permit you more over a finest control of some ship production).

[Optimus_Maximus]

CCP will not care. They already have a plan that’s been in motion for quite some time now and they will not change it regardless of your idea.

[Dictateur_Imperator]

Maybe maybe.
Anb maybe my plan is the same as they’re plan (i have a doubt ) , but we take 2 different way to arrive to it.

[you_are_evil]

go to https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/ and post it there.
Then more people will probably read it and vote you up/down, whatever.

[Teckos_Pech]

@Merin_Ryskin

Demand in EVE is mostly inflexible due to EVE being a competitive game where eliminating risk very often involves conceding defeat and letting your enemies destroy your station/take your nullsec territory/etc. Even if prices go up there’s a limit to how low demand can fall, and in many cases players are forced to keep paying no matter what the cost.

Again, no. Demand is not perfectly inelastic. I don’t even know where your risk and conceding defeat is coming from here. But you’ve turned the key point on its head. There is a limit to how high prices can go before players decide their time is better spent elsewhere.

@Merin_Ryskin

Prices will go up, but if prices go up by 50%, mining income goes up by 60%, and mission income goes up by 5% then the buying power of miners has increased significantly. Because mining is only one component of overall production and industry is only one component of the EVE economy price inflation is not going to be uniform and the net result is that miners who are smart enough to exploit the opportunity will be better off.

No. Just no. This thinking is too limited. If prices go up it does not mean that suddenly miners have to make more. People can buy less or look to alternatives. Substitutes are a thing. Or to put it more simply, a rising tide lifts all boats, a ebbing tide lowers all boats. Miners might not be as bad off as some others, but it is a mistake to assume they’ll be better off.

@Merin_Ryskin

Miners losing their “play style” of AFK mining in highsec is a feature, not a bug. It is a good thing that miners will be pressured to engage with other parts of the game, including combat PvP.

No again. Mining has always sucked. Turning mining into a crap facsimile of ratting or mission running simply means miners should reconsider their role in the game. The semi-AFK nature of mining was actually a feature for those players who engaged in it. Pretty sure you don’t mine much, so…not really sure your a good candidate to tell us what’s good for a player sub-group you aren’t part of, sorry.

@Merin_Ryskin

Even if the gains are only for a small portion of miners this is still a win. Pay less attention to the suffering of your rivals and more attention to how you can be one of the people who profits from the change.

Why is it long time tradition for EVE players think shitting on other players game play is awesome?

And have you looked at the MPI? I bet you haven’t. Last I looked it was Holy Mother ■■■■.

The Mineral Price Index has more than doubled.

@Merin_Ryskin

No, because in this example you still have 99.9999999% of the population that has been robbed for 0% of their money and there’s no impact on prices. What you keep failing to understand is that relative buying power is what matters. If a ship costs 10 million ISK pre-change and 100 million ISK post-change a 10x buff to mining income with no change to mission income means that miners now have 10x the wealth. For every 1 ship a mission runner can buy the miner can buy 10, and in a game where sheer numbers trumps almost everything else that’s a huge advantage.

OMG…just…no. Players react to these changes. They look at these changes and say, “Gee, maybe I should switch.” And even if your income does go up…stuff you were buying has also gone up, so the idea of being better off is not necessarily. That you want to now shift it to relatively better off…that is goal post shifting. And people just won’t give a ■■■■, generally speaking. A miner who is worse of than he was before isn’t going to say, “Well but that guy over there has it worse, so ha I am better off.” The converse of that is players saying, “Man I made a bundle of ISK but…■■■■…that guy over there made even more, I’m pissed!” No, a player is going to generally judge his situation to where he was previously.

@Merin_Ryskin

Highsec mining is effectively AFK, and that’s how most people want it to be. Just look at the epic whine threads when triglavians were first added and highsec miners had to pay attention to EVE occasionally instead of putting on a movie in another window and forgetting about it.

Tell us again how they are better off. This sounds like those players see things as being distinctly worse off.

@Merin_Ryskin

Sure it does. If the competent miners get double income and the incompetent idiots get half income it’s a buff overall.

These things do not add up like that. Economists tried for quite some time to come up with ways of adding this stuff up, and realized it just won’t work, which is why they use ordinal utility functions.

[Litsea_Reticulata]

@Merin_Ryskin

Games like EVE succeed by identifying a target market and capturing it, not by diluting their identity in a desperate attempt at appealing to a different market that is already captured by the competition.

It succeeded so good that when CCP finally looked at the numbers, it was revealed that War Declarations where driving people out of the game in droves.

@Merin_Ryskin

Of course it’s a legitimate argument. EVE has risk vs. reward as a core design principle, enabling menial risk-free farming is in direct contradiction to this principle.

Now wars have a higher barrier to entry, gotta put down a structure first. Sounds like a change there.

@Merin_Ryskin

I’m sorry that you aren’t able to understand this concept, but your failure is not my problem.

Typical, projecting a false reality when its already changed.

@Merin_Ryskin

“LOLOLOLOL BIAS OMG UR BIASED” is not a compelling argument.

But you are biased! This entire thread of your responses could be diluted down to ‘anyone who doesn’t PvP is wrong’.

@Eala_Nakrar

Aren’t all these complaints proof enough that there could be something wrong with your attitude? You can’t be that ignorant and puffed up!

This is the problem, its douchebags who just want to get in the way and ignore the very real problems that impact others.

@Merin_Ryskin

Nope. Every time CCP does anything that even slightly disrupts the menial grind of highsec farming there’s a thread full of threats to quit and predictions of doom for EVE, and it never happens. Whiny farmers just aren’t that important.

The drop in player activity during Blackout not doom enough?

@Merin_Ryskin

This change doesn’t hurt you.

First, they came for the drones…

@Merin_Ryskin

IMO this makes the game far more interesting than one where you can sit mostly-AFK in almost perfect safety and obtain everything you need.

How original, if only someone would point this out in the AFK cloaking thread.

@Merin_Ryskin

IMO scarcity drives conflict over resources.

Nobody cares, everything still gets shipped to Jita and TTT cashes in big time.

@Merin_Ryskin

IMO scarcity creates a sense of progression and continued interest in the game.

Skill injectors bypass all illusions of progression and considering I am a rebirth to get away from uninteresting parts of the game overly tilted towards PvP, no doubt there are others who’ve lost interest long ago also.

@Merin_Ryskin

IMO scarcity makes PvP wins and losses mean more.

SRP renders scarcity from PvP meaningless, unless your in an alliance too poor for SRP.

@Merin_Ryskin

And that is why your risk-adverse play style is bad for the game, you don’t need to refill anything. You can just sit there AFK farming in your one farming ship and never do anything to drive the economy. You need to lose stuff so that you have to buy new stuff and the economy keeps moving.

The economy would move along in a much more sustainable and scalable way if people couldn’t just sit on billions in assets at 0 cost. Alliances have stacks of 1000 dreadnaughts, inventories of millions of m^3 that cost nothing to store and maintain.

@Merin_Ryskin

CCP is not paying attention to them, but that doesn’t change the contents of their demands

CCP already changed wars, despite the bleating of those who felt it unfairly diminished their PvP.

@Merin_Ryskin

You’re right, it’s not risk of loss. It’s certainty of loss. The gankers have figured out something you will never learn: that all ships are disposable and when you lose one you just move on with the next ship.

Their ships are cheap pieces of crap that are taking advantage of cheese gameplay that has meaningless consequences.

[Shadalana]

@Merin_Ryskin

Whiny farmers just aren’t important for me.

fixed this for you.
actually this sums up all you’re post.

[safira_jomita]

Looks like the " the ore will be more scarce and then be more valuable" idea wasn’t true after all. BTW. this is for compressed dense veldspar

[Fish_Hunter]

Veldspar was made more plentiful in highsec, and was never intended to jack the price of veldspar up, that was just speculation. Pyerite was obviously being starved but took your average brainless investor much much longer to realize. Miners will always choose the path of efficiency and moving to highsec to veldspar mine was an easy choice.

[safira_jomita]

People speculate that the change was good cause ore would rocket in price, but they forgot that now tons of alts coming from hisec to mine trit just for the profit, as null mining took a big nerf.

[Daichi_Yamato]

What people told you wasn’t wrong.

Minerals rocketed in price just as they said. And if you look you’ll see that hi-sec ores are returning to their usual values. Low sec ores are even higher than their usual values.

[Razor_Laxton]

So having a team of people in cov-ops finding wh “stargates” is an issue? That’s how we used to travel, screw gates.