# The Goal For EvE Changes **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [September 29, 2020, 12:49pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-goal-for-eve-changes/270428 "2020-09-29T12:49:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Rich\_Darine](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/rich_darine/32/438327_2.png) [@Rich\_Darine](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Rich_Darine)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2020, 2:47am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-goal-for-eve-changes/270428/22 "2020-10-01T02:47:32Z")
I agree that this is a fine line. One thing I hate about this is the circumvention of our CSM and just going ahead with some plan they have and they expect us to have faith it will all work out. They also say that if they tell the CSM about it that there has been a history of people leaking it… I guess why do we have it then when we are all just a bunch of cucks that way? 😆 On the other hand I am looking forward to the challenge of these fractured trade routes and how the minerals are divided up will affect everything. ---
**Author:** ![Urziel99](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/urziel99/32/303150_2.png) [@Urziel99](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Urziel99)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2020, 2:49am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-goal-for-eve-changes/270428/23 "2020-10-01T02:49:05Z")
literally none of the ships you mentioned can fit a covert ops cloak and thus cannot warp cloaked. Only the blockade runners can fit that cloak and warp while cloaked. ---
**Author:** ![Lily\_Inkura](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/lily_inkura/32/174143_2.png) [@Lily\_Inkura](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Lily_Inkura)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2020, 3:49am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-goal-for-eve-changes/270428/24 "2020-10-01T03:49:48Z")
> [@Urziel99](#): > > literally none of the ships you mentioned can fit a covert ops cloak and thus cannot warp cloaked. Only the blockade runners can fit that cloak and warp while cloaked. Thanks for the clarification. So, cloaky warp _ **only** _ refers to warping when also using a covert ops cloak? Whereas the cloaky warp trick, which was what I was referencing to, is a “trick” that does not in fact impart any aspect of cloaky warp? Who knew. (Bizarre technical language in use at times in EvE.) ---
**Author:** ![Mevatla\_Vekraspek](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/mevatla_vekraspek/32/377519_2.png) [@Mevatla\_Vekraspek](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Mevatla_Vekraspek)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2020, 5:12am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-goal-for-eve-changes/270428/25 "2020-10-01T05:12:28Z")
> [@Rocket\_Hellfire](#): > > More minerals and greater industry security = Supers dropping on everything that moves… We already had that, we need something new. ---
**Author:** ![Ramona\_McCandless](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ramona_mccandless/32/468438_2.png) [@Ramona\_McCandless](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Ramona_McCandless)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2020, 6:28am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-goal-for-eve-changes/270428/26 "2020-10-01T06:28:07Z")
> [@Lily\_Inkura](#): > > Who knew. Well, everyone, thats why we pointed it out and I clarifyed that what the person you replayed to was talking about and what you were talking about were different things. Theres no trick to it, its just a simple trick ---
**Author:** ![Lily\_Inkura](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/lily_inkura/32/174143_2.png) [@Lily\_Inkura](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Lily_Inkura)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2020, 7:35am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-goal-for-eve-changes/270428/27 "2020-10-01T07:35:53Z")
> [@Ramona\_McCandless](#): > > > [@Lily\_Inkura](#): > > > > Who knew. > > Well, everyone, Bit sweeping, but probably true. > [@Ramona\_McCandless](#): > > thats why we pointed it out and I clarifyed that what the person you replayed to was talking about and what you were talking about were different things. The clarification was appreciated, but my point still stood. Despite my lack of full understanding of the language, I wasn’t convinced the OP had made sufficient argument for a “cloaky warp” mineral ship when a “cloaky warp trick” mineral ship already existed. Still don’t. > [@Ramona\_McCandless](#): > > Theres no trick to it, its just a simple trick This is why, in turn, I tend to refer to it in shorthand as “cloaky warp”, without the trick. Just in the same way the OP actually referred to wanting a “cloaky” ship. Which y’all understood, and I didn’t. Still, you live and learn. ---
**Author:** ![Ramona\_McCandless](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ramona_mccandless/32/468438_2.png) [@Ramona\_McCandless](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Ramona_McCandless)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2020, 7:37am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-goal-for-eve-changes/270428/28 "2020-10-01T07:37:15Z")
Its cool. YEah, he was a bit unclear, but I didnt think it was important (for me) to labour the point as your solutions are totally valid, and did underline that the original point being made to the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Iceacid\_Frostpacker](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/iceacid_frostpacker/32/505689_2.png) [@Iceacid\_Frostpacker](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Iceacid_Frostpacker)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2020, 7:46am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-goal-for-eve-changes/270428/29 "2020-10-01T07:46:27Z")
Frostpacker’s October goals had been changed. ---
**Author:** ![Iceacid\_Frostpacker](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/iceacid_frostpacker/32/505689_2.png) [@Iceacid\_Frostpacker](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Iceacid_Frostpacker)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2020, 7:49am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-goal-for-eve-changes/270428/30 "2020-10-01T07:49:04Z")
> [@Aphrodite\_Sexy](#): > > “more destruction”. Do you know that we can reprocess cheap t1 modules and use those Materials to produce T2 modules? There are many times where it is better (time wise) to just buy the t1 item than go out and mine the materials. ---
**Author:** ![Lily\_Inkura](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/lily_inkura/32/174143_2.png) [@Lily\_Inkura](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Lily_Inkura)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2020, 7:56am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-goal-for-eve-changes/270428/31 "2020-10-01T07:56:38Z")
Actually, can you quickly explain CWT (the “trick”) to me? Semi-relevant. I’ve used miasmos in LS many times and trick works by the numbers. Cloak, spool up MWD to 75% of regular speed, jump. And it jumps. Recently, I have also been using on T1 indys, instead of just relying on quick align & warp core stabs. Problem is, I’ve been tagged a couple of times. Best guess is that when I get to 75-80%, because I still get that white line with notification that warp is starting, I am still vulnerable and not actually moving? Trial and error indicates that using different fits/ ships, I might need to get up to 200% of speed before it appears to instawarp. In other words, its absolutely linked to MWD spool time and not the shorthand everyone talks about of reaching 75% speed? Does that sound right? ---
**Author:** ![Ramona\_McCandless](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ramona_mccandless/32/468438_2.png) [@Ramona\_McCandless](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Ramona_McCandless)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2020, 8:18am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-goal-for-eve-changes/270428/32 "2020-10-01T08:18:13Z")
Im only quickly looking over this, but it loooks ok. There is a margin for error, tick, manuever, align combination of events that can catch folk out, Im just not able to go into detail right now, rushing off to work. But there’s always someone around here who should be able to clear it up for ya! ---
**Author:** ![Nana\_Skalski](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/nana_skalski/32/489985_2.png) [@Nana\_Skalski](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Nana_Skalski)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2020, 8:30am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-goal-for-eve-changes/270428/33 "2020-10-01T08:30:02Z")
Not providing a cure for each disease, but loading whole cabinet full of drugs into a mixer and then serving that drink to every patient. Thats the impression I get seeing those changes. The mineral changes did not have to look like that when some mechanics changes would be in effect. But with mineral changes they affect everybody, is it good or not. ---
**Author:** ![Exaido](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/exaido/32/374242_2.png) [@Exaido](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Exaido)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2020, 10:12am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-goal-for-eve-changes/270428/34 "2020-10-01T10:12:25Z")
Scarcity isn’t necessarily the outcome of this scenario, as it requires multi-directional trade - scarcity would come from interruptions to the supply chain, and protecting those supply chains as risk management, secures them as it does make them targets for conflict. It potentially makes for meaningful conflicts. ---
**Author:** ![Aphrodite\_Sexy](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/aphrodite_sexy/32/420261_2.png) [@Aphrodite\_Sexy](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Aphrodite_Sexy)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2020, 3:03am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-goal-for-eve-changes/270428/35 "2020-10-03T03:03:44Z")
> [@Ramona\_McCandless](#): > > The first is not compatible with the second two. Yes, as long as you increase mineral yield and get the cloaky mineral ship they are. > [@God\_Emperor\_Kane](#): > > I am starting to think people are now just posting these kind of threads to get attention regardless if it is negative attention. I am starting to think you are posting this comment on every single thread that talks about mining you see. > [@Lily\_Inkura](#): > > Miners ain’t stupid. Plus, mining fleets form organically all the time, just not usually in any formal or rearranged manner. Just because they don’t do stuff, does not mean these players don’t know how. They pays their money and makes their choices to play the way they want. They then accept the consequences. Or not. Just like any other player. Well, the mining equivalent of NPSI (public mining fleets) don’t really exist (not to my knowledge). What I’m saying is that the goal of miners forming fleets and combatting pirates is a good direction for eve, so we should incentivize them to do so. > [@Lily\_Inkura](#): > > It’s a bold statement, but lacks a certain finesse. There already are three cloaky mineral carrying ships. The only true one, the kryos can cloaky warp just fine, with suitable rigs fitted, and carries about 62.5 k volume. The way to decrease the size of its contained minerals is already known as compressing ore. Ship that and **then** refine. And yes, the ore carrying miasmos is more easily cloaky warped due to its better power grid. I have used it extensively in LS for minimal losses. (Tho, what I would have given for access to some form of mobile compression platform in LS.) > > The third option is the expensive but utilitarian deep space transport class. Carries the same volume as a maxed kryos/ miasmos (slightly more?), cloaky warps, will take refined ice products, and has a two-warp core stab facility built-in. This combo is why I included it. What more do you want? Hmm… well, there should be a cloaky transport ship that could carry two mining fleets’ worth of ore loot. (yes that would mean travel time stops mattering, which sucks, but maybe you can find a way to solve that) > [@Ramona\_McCandless](#): > > And he thinks this would buff the value of mining. No. I want a buff to mineral yield at the same time to make mining worth it. Yes, ore price depends on demand and demand only, but I don’t see ore prices jumping as much as they nerfed mining, so… maybe because of market inefficiencies that we could buff mining incomes?? Speaking of which, if we do this change it means there would be much more people who think killing miners (in all areas of space) is lucrative, and do exactly that, which would counteract this increase in yield’s negative impact to the price of ore. Like the reason I don’t hunt miners is because they don’t drop a good amount of ore, nor can I carry them. > [@God\_Emperor\_Kane](#): > > > [@Lily\_Inkura](#): > > > > Miners ain’t stupid. > > I would like to direct you to this 1st post of this thread. I bet I mined less than your alts. > [@Salt\_Foambreaker](#): > > It was this way, they ■■■■■■ it up. Hmm… so maybe we should get them to start doing that again? > [@Shipwreck\_Jones](#): > > IMHO, that’s on people to learn. They can do research (watch videos, read articles), learn from osmosis by joining groups, jump on the test server (invasions excluded), or baring any of that, they can pay the tritanium price for that knowledge. Yep. It’s hard to find a mining fleet though, and hard to form one (and hard to form any kind of group overall). Like changing that is definitely changing eve for the better. Also, some of them kind of just depend on luck, so they don’t bother. We should change that as well (by incentivizing people to kill miners). > [@Shipwreck\_Jones](#): > > Pirates also roam for profit. You also seem to grossly underestimate the effect of player knowledge on outcomes. Yes, but not enough profit. A highsec miner could get much more profit than some guy roaming around nullsec, and that isn’t fair risk-reward. (unless you count fun as a reward, which I do, but then I don’t want anyone to choose between earning isk and fun) > [@Shipwreck\_Jones](#): > > I’m not sure I get the preoccupation with merc fleets. AFAIK, most miners get by just fine without them. And that’s exactly the problem. Because I want eve to be a place where people actually hire mercs to protect themselves from pirates (because that’s a cool concept, and also it makes player interaction, content, and isk making pvpers) > [@Shipwreck\_Jones](#): > > Small gangs can actually already do some real damage to larger gangs using strategy (I highly recommend you check out ChessurSB’s channel for some enjoyable videos of just that). As you can imagine, this does require a fair amount of player knowledge and good execution to pull off. Thus, you don’t see it everywhere all the time. I do, however, assure that players already do this. Hmm… well, I’d say that we should at least balance things so kitchensink nullsec response fleets don’t overpower smart needlejack fleets made under heavy theory-crafting, and that these smart fleets should at least get isk positive. > [@Shipwreck\_Jones](#): > > CCP overbuffed the Rorqual, which allowed players to flood the market with cheap ore. And why did no one hunt those rorquals who have 3b in their cargoes?? Because they can’t carry them… > [@Shipwreck\_Jones](#): > > Of course the feast is over, but the less profitable mining is, the less people will do it. Which, in turn, will help mining isk efficiencies to recover. I don’t think they’ll recover completely, but they will get better. Killing miners is a much better way of doing that (decreasing number of miners) because it gives more content and destruction. And yes, an increase in mining income decreases amount of miners because they get hunted more. > [@Exaido](#): > > The changes are collectively fascinating - the Trigs creating HS islands and fracturing trade routes. The mineral redistribution will change the supply-chain in all zones, and creates fascinating logistics issues for large scales wars, I.E WWB#2. The addition of quantum cores increasing the value of the structure pinata. Viewing the changes in a holistic fashion, it will change player and player corporation behavior, the price of goods and markets. How wars are fought, attacking a supply chain with mineral bottlenecks, and the necessity for forced regional trade (High, Low, Null) for manufacturing… It’s the adaptation and exploitation (not hack exploit - leverage kind) that will force new player behaviour. I for one, am curious to see how it plays out. Yep. > [@Gerard\_Amatin](#): > > Much easier movement of ores/minerals means mining will be most profitable in the areas with most defences on standby, while the competition of those heavily mined areas makes mining in other regions of space much less valuable. > > Is that really what you want as a miner? > > I think it’s a good thing that CCP is actually doing the complete opposite: making ores/minerals harder to move and making more areas in space valuable to mine in. This somewhat counters the consolidation of large alliances and gives smaller corporations a better chance to make ISK through mining. That incentivizes defenses for a miner (through hiring of mercs, or joining a fleet) Also I’m not a miner. > [@Destiny\_Corrupted](#): > > This is because there are _too many people doing it_ . When over half of the game’s population consists of high-sec miners looking for easy, passive ISK, mining will _never_ be profitable. That’s very true. This again: if we buff mining income, there would be more pirates and miners would die more, meaning there would be less miners. > [@Solonius\_Rex](#): > > NPE encourages players to join corps and joining a corp is not a lot of effort. > > Problem averted. Really? Many miners are in NPC corps or their own corps (not much reason to have fleets anyways, at least not security/content reasons). > [@Solonius\_Rex](#): > > So youre saying that the fact that there are fewer number of pirates, is a problem for miners? What? I’m saying that because there aren’t enough pirates, the content that arises from the fighting for resources doesn’t appear. > [@Solonius\_Rex](#): > > Mining is and can be done AFK with minimal input, effort and risk. Profits should be based off of difficulty, effort and risk. Hence why Mining isnt very profitable. And this is perfectly fine. That is quite true, but these points have to be looked at together: more mining income/more yield=more profit for pirates/more pirates=miners have to hire mercs(which reduces the profitability, as well as making it bothersome(effort))=content > [@Solonius\_Rex](#): > > No. The only way to kill hisec miners is by ganking, and most merc fleets will not gank, because they do other things in hisec that require them to have a decent-enough security standing. I’m talking about all areas of space. (and I say mercs as in a hired defense mechanism, maybe they rep people or something. > [@Solonius\_Rex](#): > > Awoxing has been removed and you can only be wardecced if you have a structure. If you go around hisec corporations, you will find that most, if not all of them are incredibly welcoming of new players and will accept almost any and all corporation invite requests. Awoxing hadn’t been removed (and many mining corps have friendly fire, too). I meant like freelance mining fleets (which give more choice for miners). > [@Solonius\_Rex](#): > > So youre suggesting that we should invent a mechanic that would allow 5 players to steamroll 100 players simultaneously? > > Are you kidding me? I mean, 5 people should be able to kill 20 with a good fleet comp, intel, and very good strategy. > [@Solonius\_Rex](#): > > No, we dont. As I said before, profit should be based off of effort, difficulty and risk. Mining in hisec has none of those. As Arthur Fleck once said, “you get what you f\*cking deserve”. And that should change. An increase in mining income means wrecks yield more and more people become gankers. > [@Solonius\_Rex](#): > > What? No its not. > > The fact that you fail to understand, is that Trust is earned, not given. There is plenty of trust and friendship in EVE, and they are well earned. I trust my corpmates and my CEO. And that is the only people you trust? How do you join a new group then? NPSI kinds of trust is the kind I’m saying, (more choices) > [@Solonius\_Rex](#): > > I dont understand what this stake is, or how it is going to prevent people from getting new characters. If you had to pay 10 mil for stake for a new character, it will prevent you from making that new character just to join a mining fleet and awox once. > [@Solonius\_Rex](#): > > How do you prevent abuse? I have like 20 alts, i can spam those points and get tons of perks. > > Also, scamming is perfectly accepted, and you will likely be negatively affected by whining about it. Yes, but it’s not supposed to be uncounterable, and scamming fleets/merc fleets nowadays ARE. > [@Gerard\_Amatin](#): > > How is EVE more fun when everything is cheap? Let’s say I can buy any ship easily, would EVE still be engaging for me? > > No, because loss won’t matter. It’s like those RTS games that you tried playing with cheats for free resources: fun for a few games and then becomes incredibly boring. Yep, but more minerals get DESTROYED by pirates as well because there are more pirates (also ships are getting more expensive, and that’s not too good for people just getting into cruisers) > [@Lily\_Inkura](#): > > This is why, in turn, I tend to refer to it in shorthand as “cloaky warp”, without the trick. Just in the same way the OP actually referred to wanting a “cloaky” ship. Which y’all understood, and I didn’t. All ships can fit a cloak. So it’s not very useful to make “cloaky” a type of ships that encompass all ships with high slots. I meant covert cloaky (because those have better security). ---
**Author:** ![Ramona\_McCandless](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ramona_mccandless/32/468438_2.png) [@Ramona\_McCandless](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Ramona_McCandless)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2020, 5:13am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-goal-for-eve-changes/270428/36 "2020-10-03T05:13:59Z")
> [@Aphrodite\_Sexy](#): > > Yes, as long as you increase mineral yield and get the cloaky mineral ship they are. That makes them even LESS compatible. Its basic economics How does having MORE of something increase its value per unit? It doesnt, it decreases it. ---
**Author:** ![z0ra\_Berg](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/z0ra_berg/32/187042_2.png) [@z0ra\_Berg](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/z0ra_Berg)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2020, 1:58pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-goal-for-eve-changes/270428/37 "2020-10-03T13:58:11Z")
Your whole post can be dismissed looking at just two specific lines. > [@Aphrodite\_Sexy](#): > > I understand that eve is a trustless world but we can’t have it be TRUSTLESS. This line exposes a complete lack of understanding of the game. > [@Aphrodite\_Sexy](#): > > Heavily buff mining income, have a cloaky mineral carrying ship, and heavily decrease mineral size. This line exposes a complete lack of understanding of economics. ---
**Author:** ![Aphrodite\_Sexy](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/aphrodite_sexy/32/420261_2.png) [@Aphrodite\_Sexy](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Aphrodite_Sexy)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2020, 1:27am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-goal-for-eve-changes/270428/38 "2020-10-04T01:27:12Z")
> [@Ramona\_McCandless](#): > > That makes them even LESS compatible. > > Its basic economics > > How does having MORE of something increase its value per unit? > > It doesnt, it decreases it. > [@z0ra\_Berg](#): > > This line exposes a complete lack of understanding of economics. For both of you: What was the price of minerals before they nerfed the rorqual? After they nerfed the rorqual? How much less supply of minerals were there? You could easily see that those aren’t proportional. The market is inefficient in eve. Even if the only supply of minerals come from miners, the price of minerals are locked also by the inertia of insurances, the people who’s only activity is to mine (and do, and know how to do, nothing else), and other factors. With your lines of thought, since the price changes in proportion to the supply of minerals, and mining nerfs change nothing to the demand of ore, that miner isk/h doesn’t change AT ALL even if CCP nerfed mining so that people mine 1 piece of ore per hour. This isn’t true. I’m not saying to increase ore’s value per unit, I’m saying to increase ore’s yield per piece of ore, to utilize that market inefficiency and increase miners’ isk per hour (while also informing them to do something else, reducing amount of supply and increasing miner isk/h with market forces. ---
**Author:** ![Ramona\_McCandless](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ramona_mccandless/32/468438_2.png) [@Ramona\_McCandless](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Ramona_McCandless)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2020, 9:38am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-goal-for-eve-changes/270428/39 "2020-10-04T09:38:57Z")
> [@Aphrodite\_Sexy](#): > > What was the price of minerals before they nerfed the rorqual? After they nerfed the rorqual? Why dont you tell us if you know? > [@Aphrodite\_Sexy](#): > > With your lines of thought, since the price changes in proportion to the supply of minerals, and mining nerfs change nothing to the demand of ore, that miner isk/h doesn’t change AT ALL even if CCP nerfed mining so that people mine 1 piece of ore per hour. This is a strawman I didnt say. > [@Aphrodite\_Sexy](#): > > mining nerfs Such as? > [@Aphrodite\_Sexy](#): > > I’m saying to increase ore’s yield per piece of ore, to utilize that market inefficiency and increase miners’ isk per hour (while also informing them to do something else, reducing amount of supply ??? You havent explained at all how increasing the yield = reducing the supply. The only things you have proposed are methods that would make there be more minerals making it to market. And that has one single result, cheaper minerals. ---
**Author:** ![Gerard\_Amatin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/gerard_amatin/32/481361_2.png) [@Gerard\_Amatin](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Gerard_Amatin)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2020, 10:05am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-goal-for-eve-changes/270428/40 "2020-10-04T10:05:35Z")
> [@Aphrodite\_Sexy](#): > > I’m not saying to increase ore’s value per unit, I’m saying to increase ore’s yield per piece of ore, to utilize that market inefficiency and increase miners’ isk per hour (while also informing them to do something else, reducing amount of supply and increasing miner isk/h with market forces. All other things considered equal, increased yield means increased supply. How can that reduce supply? The only way increased mining yield can result in a reduced mineral supply is if you simultaneously reduce the amount of minerals refined per ore, at a higher ratio than the increased yield. Is that what you want? ---
**Author:** ![Jonah\_Gravenstein](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/jonah_gravenstein/32/386819_2.png) [@Jonah\_Gravenstein](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Jonah_Gravenstein)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2020, 10:23am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-goal-for-eve-changes/270428/41 "2020-10-04T10:23:56Z")
For the benefit of some. ![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/3X/7/d/7d8c602bba02d2dcd43d299206f2d652c614e9ae.png) Better yields = supply goes up and price goes down. I like my minerals cheap and have the resources and knowledge to leverage such a change to the detriment of the people that @Aphrodite_Sexy thinks it would help. -Evil industrialist Jonah [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-goal-for-eve-changes/270428.md?page=1) [Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-goal-for-eve-changes/270428.md?page=3)