First off, there was no related reduction in day-to-day pvp in the last years, at most pvp’ers will pvp or simply drop out. What failed to happen was Big Wars. And that had nothing to do with mineral costs of ships. There was no reason to have Big Wars. The risk averseness to Big Wars is related to losing influence and membership, so there’d better be a good reason to wage large scale war.
At least that’s how it is until today. With a shortage of minerals there is the danger of not being able to replace losses (hence risk aversion), after strategic reserves are consumed (which may take a long while given the enormous piles present in the game, due to rorqual changes, orca swarms, moon goo including minerals, upwell structures in hisec, barely discriminating redistribution of moon goo, etc). To have that continuum of ISK generated and ISK taken out of the game via destruction the most efficient and stable way, in my opinion at least, is to have a constant reason for conflict between the larger entities, as the loss values incurred by large conflicts are the highest - or should be in the right ecosystem.
A stable EvE economy at its most basic level means there has to be destruction equal to value being generated. If that can be achieved in a way that satisfies both “ISK generators” (industrialists) and “ISK destroyers” (pvp’ers) then you have a wonderful game with a healthy ecosystem. Perhaps an oversimplification.
The large scale conflict driver I am hoping for (since 2013 at least) is what could be hidden behind those mysterious words of “dynamic resource distribution”. Technetium moons were a thing, a long time ago. The mistake may have been not to let moon resources deplete over time. However, it may take a lot of time before dynamic distribution is implemented and effective, given the stockpiles of all materials in the game.
No contradiction, but a comparison of the present and a possible future scenario during shortage (and depletion of stockpiles). How the big entities will behave during shortage, well I assume they will be doubly careful before waging big wars. In any case, I did not write about value, which for larger groups is not really a concern, but about replacement of losses via accessibility of minerals. The high value part of those fleets is manufactured and mined by those groups, not bought from others.
By the way, an interesting topic would be a comparison of what’s still possible during wwb2 in Delve in terms of mining/manufacturing vs what the opposition can do. The latter still have a hinterland that provides plenty of mining and are free to manufacture anything, in theory at least providing an endless source of war supplies, while the former has to fight and mine/manufacture in the same 1 or 2 regions, or at the very least have smaller numbers than their opposition. Which one would hold out the longest ? That’s the comparison of the “times of surplus” (non-imperium) with “times of shortage” (imperium). Who will think twice about sending out the most valuable part of the fleet you suppose ? See the next MER’s
You equate fights-not-taking-place with risk aversion. Besides simple “cost” you need to add “reason for conflict” in the risk aversion equation. I tried to explain that the fights worth mentioning, those that do have a considerable influence on the game’s economy, are more likely tied to reasons or necessities to have the big war. I truly hope the changes will give them sufficient reasons to have big wars instead of engaging in a comfortable stalemate zone of wealth scraping without significant destruction. Sure, there are small scale fights, but those do not register as an influence on the economy. If Tom, Dick and Harry don’t want to engage each other in combat, for whatever reasons, it is not economically important (unless all Toms, Dicks and Harrys stop pvp’ing, which is unlikely). For them, your reasoning may be correct - they don’t want to pay more for replacement of ships. As to the groups and individuals outside these big entities, maybe they are allowed to have too much of a comfort zone (being “self-sufficient” as written in the devblog), without interaction with the rest of the sandbox, just amassing wealth without, again, significant destruction. Perhaps those groups and individuals are the most risk averse of the community. What their percentage is I have no idea.
Do you know? The only thing I know is that they nerfed the rorqual and ore prices rose, but not too much.
Well, to your line of thought that is true. The profit gained from selling a product is the price of the product times the quantity supplied. If an increase in supply of ore decreases mining isk/h, then a decrease in supply of ore increases mining isk/h. Maybe I’m wrong about what affects mining isk/h (I still think I’m right), but I am talking about buffing mining’s ISK/H, NOT how (though I did mention it).
Bruh.
Cheaper minerals=decrease in price=increase in demand
Increasing the yield=increase in quantity supplied
If both happen at the same time, mining isk/h may or may not increase. I believe it increases because this is a shift of the supply curve to the right.
Twice the yield=more than half the price (inelasticy of demand for ore)=an increase in demand (less price more demand)
Look, I avoided this in depth analysis for a reason. It’s pretty hard to explain.
A result of increased mining yield is an increase in supply of ore. But there is also something important that this causes, which is an increase in pirates (because miners are more juicy targets, and pirates can actually carry the ore with the new cloaky mineral carrying ship, and since that ore is halved by loot fairy, it is obvious that there is also a decrease in supply of ore (yes not as much as the increase, but still fair). It also gives miners enough isk so they try something else (and stop mining, also decreasing supply of ore).
(Also I think I meant refining yield when I mentioned yield, I guess I wasn’t clear enough, because refining yield means pirates could carry more loot in isk and also incentivize them to kill miners)
Look above. Price goes down a little but supply goes up a lot, increasing miner isk/h (and you get cheaper ore too, and even if that increases supply of ships the price decreases only a little, profit for you as well) (because that curve is a normal demand curve, while demand for ore is rather inelastic, as it has not many substitutes)
ISK destroyers would run out of ISK, that’s the problem… Economies HAVE to grow in order to satisfy people. I guess we just need to reset the eve economy sometime.
No thats why I asked you. If you KNOW this, then where can I confirm this was the case?
I could say the opposite with as much evidence as you have supplied, it wouldnt make it any more or less true.
Right, so bringing more minerals per M3 in much safer transports would not “buff mining’s ISK/H”, it will decrease it as more minerals make it safely to market.
Your ISK/H woould go down as you could mine more minerals more efficently.
If anything you should be happy about the recent mining changes, right?
Given you just stated that …
…what nerfs? Tell me one single nerf to mining. Just one.
Yes, its because its fundementally flawed.
Increasing the yield = increase in quantity supplied (Provided it can be delivered)
Increase in quantity supplied = Decrease in price
Thats all there is to it. The decrease in price may have an affect to raise interest in the short term, but not enough to counter the fact that a lot more minerals would then flood the market, driving prices down and making you have to mine longer and harder for less ISK
You need to stimulate mineral sales somehow, but making it easier to get more minerals to market is not going to increase your ISK/HR.
Especially not when everyone else would be doing it if it was so great.
Hate to tell you, but people who kill miners dont care about your ore.
Where is your evidence for this? Where is your projections? Where is this curve you have calculated.
If you really have a serious suggestion for improving mining, youll need to have these things to convince CCP.
If suddenly miners in real life could mine more ore for their time, would they be happy or sad? Would they earn more or less??
There we go.
The nerf to rorquals everyone talks about.
Yes, but ISK/H is PRICE*QUANTITY! Price decreases but QUANTITY INCREASES, A LOT!
Yes this is all caps, but please just answer my point.
They should. That’s what the changes are about. If you can carry the ore easily and there is a lot of ore in a miner’s ore bay, you might want to kill some miners.
Let’s just say, miners would be happy if their ore increased in yield.
No they wouldn’t run out of ISK. Pvp’ers have an income, always had and always will, to fund their activity of destroying and losing ships. At most they would find other ways for funding, fly cheaper ships during shortage and maybe engage in other activities for a while.
As to the “always MORE” attitude of people, as long as that results in more expensive ships destroying equally bigger piles of ISK i.e., the balance is retained, then it’s okay. Having a surplus of either of them is bad for economic stability and the game itself, I think.
Real life is not what we are talking about, but I think a miner in RL who mines LESS and gets paid MORE for it would be happiest. Which is the situation we are approaching if these mining changes have the desired effect. What you are suggesting would be mining for more HR to get less ISK.
First time it has come up in this conversation. What is this change and what did it do? Im not going to take your word for something. If there was a nerf, can you at least link to some information about it?
And you are saying somehow that more quanitity will equal more price, and I dont understand how you come to that conclusion. If your point isnt “Increase Isk/hr by increasing amounts going from rock to market” then, I guess I dont know what point it is Im supposed to address.
EDIT: For a start you want cloaky haulers. Good luck killing those.
Why bother? The ore in a Proc isnt worth bringing a Maismos or other hauler toon in for when you can just badger out the modules from the wreck instead.
Sure, Id pick up what I could carry if I ganked, but Im more the third party that takes the rocks after the baddies have melted the miner. And let me tell you, 9/10, the gankers leave the rocks.
Another part of it is that isk destroyers always destroy less isk than they make, meaning equilibrium is next to impossible.
Hmm… growth isn’t economic stability, we have growth in real life, and economic stability here too.
Ok fine. For their time AND EFFORT. Also, eve’s economy is quite realistic (and if it isn’t then you can’t use the laws of supply and demand)
Look, I wasn’t here when this nerf happened (or I was away from eve and wasn’t informed). But I know that there wasn’t a huge boom to ore prices, ever, and that there was a nerf to rorquals. I don’t know when or where, but it exists.
I’m not saying that. I’m saying:
Yes, an increase in quantity decreases price
But not necessarily decreases ISK/H
Because ISK/H is Price*QUANTITY
And quantity increases at the same time price decreases
Then because demand for ore is rather inelastic, price decreases less and quantity increases more, so MORE ISK/H for the miners.
Hmm… True. I was thinking about mining ships like in the ORE line, the ones that actually mine. I guess maybe if they had a cloaky mining ship that picks the ore up all the time it wouldn’t put any risk on at all? Maybe ore can be changed to no be able to be jettisoned or something.
And that’s kinda the problem. If the ore in the Proc has much more yield, then it would be profitable to try and kill these Procs and bring in one of those ships. (remember, because by the changes I’m proposing there would be a lot more minerals/ore inside those cargo bays, so even if the price of that ore is low, there’s still much more profit in there)
Well, maybe they’d think twice if the rocks (again, rockS, there would be way more ore in that wreck than there is in wrecks now) are very valuable and they have a ship to hold them.
Are farmers happy when the weather is good and their grain grows fast and they yield heaps? Or are they happy when there isn’t a grain surplus because a freak storm wrecked the entire country’s crops?
You are simply saying more crops to sell = more profit. This is unsustainable if it happens uniformally across the industry. If you cannot see why this is so, then we shall have to disagree.
Do you know what a Grain Mountain is? Or a Butter Lake?
The changes in EvEs mineral distribution are far removed from a freak storm destroying an entire yield or a famine.
But the current mineral surplus is having a detremental effect. Mining isnt profitable right now. Scarcity will raise prices and unless mining cycle time has changed, the isk/hr can only increase once those surpluses are used.
And used they will be. Dont think for a second all the recent changes are unconnected. The Triglvians, the Quantum Cores, the mining, its all changing the economy to a different direction.
Hmm… we might have to disagree. Ok… When I’m bothered I’ll go and make a nice supply demand chart for you and then you might understand, but I haven’t got time now.
So let’s look the other way. What if we divide the ore yields by 10? Would that change ISK/H of mining for the better? Probably not, and it will kill the game as well.
Grain mountains and butter lakes are external. If every farmer owns part of a grain mountain no one at all will be sad. Too obvious.
Isk/hour has been going up with the recent changes and again with the latest announcement.
As a miner, no i would not. Increasing yield was a mistake. Especially the orca and rorqual.
This is just a false statement.
Supply and demand does apply to eve but not every rule does.
For example, eve does not have a cost of living. Eve characters are generally self employed do not need food or pay rent, ships don’t use fuel, there is no income tax, and a million other differences.
The great depression of the early 1900’s can not happen in eve.
Understanding which rules apply and which ones don’t takes some understanding of both.
Yes there was. It happened within the last year when basic ore was taken out of moon belts. You can literally check in the in game market. Right now.
If the demand for ore is inelastic (like oil in the real world) the opposite is true.
Prices fluctuate more based on supply. That’s why oil prices plummeted when UAE saturated the market. There were memes about negative value oil.
You have some knowledge of economics but you’re using it incorrectly.
Then why are all the miners so unhappy? I hear screams of “YOU NERFED MINING TO THE DEATH” all around the forums. Part of it is true.
Do you mine in an orca or a rorqual? You’d probably be happy that your yield increases. Imagine if capital ships did no DPS but only provided boosts…
Cost of living: 500 PLEX/month. Doesn’t matter whether it comes from ISK or $, there’s a cost to being omega in eve (not living, but being alpha is being in poverty).
Hmm… think again. If enough people leave EvE it will happen.
Also, there is an opportunity cost for eve players to spend time and effort on eve: namely, other games, or anything else people do with their time. If a miner could mine more ore for their time and effort, they would be happier. Because they are essentially “buying” more ore, paying their own time and happiness.
Hmm… wait… Was it around the start of April last year? Veldspar turned from 22 to 27, but that was because of market panic. It fell down to 25 later on. Not much of a change. Personally I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure more ore was taken off the market than that little change.
Ohhhhh… Right. Thank you very much.
Hmm… but then there’s two lines of thought. Following the demand&supply line of thought, when they nerfed moon mining there should’ve been a HUGE price boom, not the petite one of 22->25 (I always thought everybody mined moon goo because it’s easy and safe and gives a lot.
(ok… I checked tritanium… apparently it turned from 7->10. My guess was that industrialists needed that trit for their profitability and their buy orders pushed prices up and stabilizes the price caused by market panic)
It’s a knee jerk reaction. There are people that genuinely didn’t realise isk/hour mining has gone up. From roughly 10-15mil/hour/barge to 20+mil/hour/barge and, if things go ahead as planned, it will continue to go higher than that. Some people just don’t know what these changes mean.
I remember brilliant gneiss and dazzling spod being something like 15mil/hour/barge during the height of moon mining and that was as good as ore got. Before the latest announcement, plag was 17-18 and today basic veldspar is 22 or 23 and you don’t even have to wait a week for a moon to pop.
People are also complaining that they can’t mine every mineral themselves without having to trade with other players. They are ‘the mineral i mine are free’ types. They are irrational.
People also forget this is just a phase.
The only genuine complaint? That pyrox will be crap after this next change. So you better hope caldari and amarr space get plagioclase.
The orca has many uses beyond mining and boosting. People used orcas when they had no mining bonus, less tank and less ore bay. So we’d still use it if it was nerfed.
And yes i use orcas. I also used T3’s when they were overpowered. And Gilas. And canes/drakes. They also deserved nerfs.
But if i don’t pay that cost of living my character doesn’t starve. The lights and heating of my home don’t switch off. The landlord doesn’t evict me. My character is very much still live and kicking and even still able to earn a very decent wage.
The economy can change if enough people left yes. But corporations will not go bankrupt and eve players can never be unemployed nor will they ever need to join a breadline. Their wage cannot fall below the cost of living. Not when we can literally print money and make cars from stuff we find in our backyards.
The great depression it will not be.
If the only reason you play eve is to maximise mineral creation then you won’t be happy about the changes no. But that’s actually a good thing because if you are that person, you are the cancer that is killing the game.
It’s been spelled out for everyone by CCP, we are making too much stuff. So anyone who’s complaining that they can’t make as much stuff as before is literally complaining that the game is getting healthier.
Apparently CCP have even said, if you don’t like it, quit!. And i support that sentiment 100% because, to reiterate, these people are part of the problem we’re trying to fix.
About that time yes. Veldspar may have been relatively unaffected because it’s always been the greatest source of trit and it is still found everywhere. But now that trit is being (mostly) removed from other areas of space veldspar is set to become the most valuable hi-sec ore.
Look at plag and pyrox prices from the same period. Should be more significant.
Another guess is that mineral stockpiles are holding back demand for the moment. We just have ridiculous amounts of minerals just sitting in some peoples hangars.
Similar thing happened to the rattlesnake after it got a huge buff. The increased demand wasn’t reflected in the price for a while, presumably by goons feeding the market from all the LP they had saved up over the years.
Edit-
Oh and one last thing. Mineral demand in eve is probably more elastic than oil is in the real world. If a manufacturer doesn’t like the cost of minerals he can get minerals from outside the market, like Mining himself or gun mining. Or change profession completely.
I have big stock piles too. And so will other hi-sec players. At least null sec groups lose their stuff in fights. Hi-sec has been too safe for nearly a decade so we’ve been building up resources and ships with little to no losses for years.
Redistribution part 2 perhaps?
Don’t know why you think it might be better or worse for small groups. And frankly who gives a ■■■■?
