Because the high-demand minerals are now found outside of highsec, where going AFK is suicide. And this is what the farmers are raging about, that they can’t do everything in their industry chain without ever leaving the tutorial zone.
1 Like
Many if not all 0.5 systems even some 0.6 belts I happen visit contain fairly large Concentrated Veldspar in excess of 100,000 each. Maybe the location I happened to visit was partly farmed. It is difficult for me to log in after reset. or if I do I am in idle mode with a night cap in hand.
Well, they can always mine Tritanium. (and they mine trit anyways, and the price increased without a decrease in supply)
Hmm… Ok. If you decrease supply further and like turn mining into 1 m3/h, then it will be bad to the miners. While I admit that CCP would never do this, if a decrease in supply increases isk/h, wouldn’t mining like 1m3/hour mean the isk/h would be very high for miners?
Lastly, you’re missing the point in my OP:
We want more PVPers, so we should incentivise PVP. If we increase the yield of the ore in mining ships, people would want to kill them for their loot. This would mean they would have to protect themselves more. This would create content. Because more people would want to kill them they get killed more, which would decrease supply of ore. This would increase incentive for PVP also, as people roaming get more fights, as well as the ore becoming more valuable and roaming increasing income.
So why make it a theoretical if you are sure they wont? You are undermining (no pun intended) your own position by using such exaggerated examples.
You never mention that cycle time remains unchanged.
This means the volume of ore pulled in remains the same, and that its how it processes has changed.
Look its simple. If you have something thats needed and its common, the price is low because its not hard to get.
Make it slightly more uncommon, and its monetary value goes up because people are more likely to pay for it if theres less of it.
But more m3 of cargo isnt an incentive if you need to carry thousands of m3 for it to be profitable.
Simple example: How much Trit in m3 do you have to have to equate to 5m isk worth of Morphite?
And why is a a comparatively small amount of Morphite worth so much more even though only tiny amounts are used per build? Because it is harder to get and its yields are low.
Hmm… you know how people think ratters in C6s are super good targets? Because they have like a huge amount of loot in them. Of course, these people aren’t lazy and usually ferry their loot away, so people don’t usually aim for their loot. On the other hand, if ore had the same isk/m3 (isk density) of like sleeper data caches (don’t care about logistics for now, I’ll think of a better way later), and ore holds are equal to now, and ships have to be not AFK and ruin their ISK/H by ferrying the ore, we get ore holds full of hundreds of millions of ore, and we would want to kill miners.
The price of Morphite is high because the yield of Mercoxit is low. If you have more Morphite per Mercoxit then price of Morphite would get low, BUT miners would get more isk/h. Yes, I see the fact that price is related to supply, but you have to see the point that both PRICE AND SUPPLY build into isk/h, what I am talking about.
Because I need you to explain to me why even if nerfs to mining increases miner isk/h, this big stupid bad nerf wouldn’t.
That’s what CCP is doing. Less resources easily available leads to more fighting for resources. When miners can’t easily suck all the belts dry anymore and are in higher risk of getting ganked, they will group up or leave. Either way, other miners will come who understand that grouping up is important to play this game. Some hardcore miners will keep mining solo, which is fine too.
More resources in lowsec than highsec means you either need to be smart enough not to get killed when you go mining there solo, or you need the support of a group to protect your mining ship. That, too, increases the amount of PvP encounters. Of course, it’s lowsec. The odds of getting attacked in lowsec are significantly higher than in highsec.
PvP focussed corporations will start hiring miners to sustain them, because buying ore/minerals from the market will become unnecessarily expensive. Minerals the miners mine might not be free, but at least they don’t cost tons of ISK. People will rather send out miners to mine ore for them, than doing PvE for ISK. The odds of mining ops creating content are significantly higher than PvE ops creating content. More PvP corps requiring miners to sustain them is a good thing, because it not only helps them sustaining activity, it also helps creating content for everyone involved due to the fighting for the resources.
The less resources available, the higher the price for the resources. Increasing yield does not increase the price, it lowers it, because there’s more available. Who would you rather gank? A miner with 1000m³ in his hold worth 10 million isk, or a miner with 1000m³ in his hold worth 100 million ISK? When there’s more resources available, the overall price per m³ goes down, making it less interesting to gank miners for economic reasons. It’s always fun killing miners, but it’s more fun killing miners with lots of value in their hold.
1 Like
Because its a strawman.
Ive explained several times how surplus = low prices but you are hanging on to the idea that some how if the amount available if a commodity increases, the value will go up.
This is just simply untrue.
Was kind of exactly what we were talking about with you example.
Sleeper caches are tiny m3 and high isk per unit.
Ore isnt.
Price is determined by supply and need. Increase supply and you lower need as accumulation is easier.
No. Demand stays the same, but is harder to fulfil. A smaller supply does not lower demand but increases pressure on the wallet. Additionally, higher yield leads to less time invested in gathering the resources, which also reduces the chances of getting killed due to less exposure to dangers.
If its a smaller yield, not if its bigger
And no, an increase in rarity of an item increases its demand.
Once an item crosses a particular market price, its much more likely to be subject to Speculation.
Correct, it increases it.
Disagree. Its not going to affect how many game hours someone sits afk for, the majority of all mining.
The chances of ship loss are far more dependant on the pilots awareness than an hour extra in space.
The loss angle was only brought in by Aphordite to appeal to the audience, and make their krabbing seem justified.
Well yes, of course. Did you not talk about smaller yields?
I did not factor this in at all. I only accounted for people who actually require resources, ignoring the market leechers. Those guys usually don’t buy when the price is already high, though.
Of course it will, because sitting afk is far more likely to get you killed. Reduced ore supply leads to an increase in miner-killing. Miners will not be mining beyond their needs when they know that every additional minute can mean their sudden death. Even the most flawless escape tactics can be overcome eventually. When everyone’s fighting for resources, then sole for-profit-minerals-i-mine-are-free-mining will decrease.
We will be seeing less and less afk mining simply because the risks far outweigh the benefits.
Only in so far as current and patched yields are smaller than the bigger ones Aphrodite wants to introduce. Im not sure why you are making this point to me if we both agree.
It is is something they desire. Their sudden interest in a commodity that started cheap and then they noticed the trend affected it.
But not when there is no difference in the amount of time you afk for.
It doesnt matter if its for 5m/hr or 80m/hr, you cannot legislate based on the likelyhood someone will stop doing an easy task because they have enough.
So how come they do it now?
…how does this support Aphrodite’s contention that higher yields are good?
Cant be fighting for resources when yields are higher, because whats the point when you could just go get them yourself?
I wasn’t trying to make a point to you.
FOMO only happens during a bull run. When the price for a good has settled in high regions, FOMO doesn’t happen anymore. People will not buy ore at high prices, speculating that the price goes even higher, once game mechanics have settled.
I don’t understand why you count speculation as a factor. In the long run it’s not going to be one, especially because most people will be unable to play that way due to the lack of money.
Why is legislation now a part of this conversation? Miners, who will mine for groups, will not mine beyond the needs for the group when the group can not provide for their safety. Losing a mining ship drains the resources of the group, thus not losing the mining ship is of equally high priority as gaining the resources to build more.
Because it’s easy to do so and losses are relatively cheap. That is going to change significantly. When build materials are more expensive, losses are going to hurt more.
It doesn’t. She’s wrong. I’m not supportive of her position.
I don’t understand.
Demand is what drives the market.
Supply is what attempts to satisfy that demand.
It doesn’t matter what size the supply is if there is no demand.
If the supply is less than the demand then you can charge more for it, if you control the supply you can release it slowly allowing you to charge even more for it.
As for exposure to danger:
If it’s a single trip then you would be right. But if it’s multiple trips then the difference in exposure to danger would be negligible.
Edit:
Additional to to exposure to danger.
Multiple trips with a higher yield you would still be right if, they decided that ‘x’ trips was all they were going to do. But my comment is really when looking at a set time, so you might get an extra trip or two in with a higher yield.
The use of the word “you” when you quoted and replied meant it looked like you were talking to me.
I dont understand why you dont. Amongst all commodities that are traded, there’s no reason to exclude i as it affects price. People hoard stuff well after its been mined. I mean, just look in the Info channel for the amount of people claiming to be excited at speculation due to the changes.
To legislate in this manner means to take account of the cases arising from a proposed change. When we discuss how a change may affect the game, thats what that refers to,
And miners who mine for themselves dont stop till they have to turn their machine off, I dont understand why you think miners more than anyone have a limit to their greed. Evidence in EvE so far has suggested the opposite.
I very much doubt it.
People are greedy, its inherent. They will stay for as long as they can regardless. Increase the yield, and nothing changes. Reduce it, nothing in change -Specifically in regard to how long ships stay in space for-
If you are using Aphordite’s example of higher yields, why would anyone need to fight over minerals when theres simply more of them.
I can’t talk to both of you at the same time. The longer my response, the longer your responses will be and the more work my next response will be. Others often don’t seem to have issues with that, but it’s not something I want to deal with. That’s neither of your faults, though. Both of you.
So I’ll just cover this all at once and claim that we’ll see, because that’s what we’ll all be doing ultimately anyway. The only guarantees are more fights, more explosions and less afk miners due to the increased hostility of the environment everywhere.
Thanks, I didn’t know that and believe I shouldn’t have jumped into this conversation in the first place, because it feels I’ve miscommunicated.
1 Like
Its cool, I think we are both singing from the same hymn book. But yeah, wait and see pretty much what Im doing too.
1 Like
We don’t need to assume anymore, we can see the data. What do you think the data says?
My data says Im selling well and high in Amarr, Rens and Ronne.
What does yours say?
Funny, the market data says ore pricing is all over the map…many ores are down versus pre announcment…meanwhile most other prices are up.
But if it helps you, who cares what its impact is on the game.
And, of course, yields are down as well. So flat price = lower income
Ok, if you say so vOv