Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ephia
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 13:45:00 -
[1]
Is:
Mineral supply from reprocessing T1 mission drops > Mineral supply from insurance fraud?
or the other way around.
Discuss
|
yan soon
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 13:55:00 -
[2]
Already tried this, to put things on a 100 point scale of how manyminerals are put onto the market by reprocessing mission loot would be around 60%-75%. A good 20%-35% from mining, and around 5%(if that) from rouge drone components.
But if insurance falls, that net breaks, t1 drops like a 20$ *****. T2 will boom because they have insurance(t2 frigs mostly) leading to people trying to make more profit on said ships and components.
|
Raimus Kallenden
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 23:58:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Ephia
Mineral supply from insurance fraud?
The destruction of ships en masse doesn't produce minerals, it takes them away.
That said, I have absolutely no idea what this thread is about.
|
Companion Trollin
You are going too fast
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 02:17:00 -
[4]
The big answer: 42
discuss
♥
Originally by: CCP Shadow Off-topic posts dealing with sexual orientation have been removed. Please keep this discussion on-topic.
Thanks.
-- Shadow
|
Semper Nefarius
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 15:34:00 -
[5]
I'm gonna rephrase it a bit.
Is:
Mineral supply from reprocessing T1 missions drops >(Minerals used in insurance fraud + increased minerals from new ore and dronepoo composition)?
or the other way around?
That said I'm sure there's a ton of other factors I haven't bothered to consider, though I guess these will be the big ones.
I think there's already been a few threads on this topic, and afik noone knows for sure yet. And if they did, they probably woulnd't speak of it until they have done their own speculation.
|
admiral fovios
Minmatar Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2010.05.16 11:48:00 -
[6]
CCP knows. Read into all the changes they're making and there's a strong suggestion as to what the result will be.
Trit and other low end minerals (everything you can get in high sec) are produced by an army of macro miners. Dropping T1 loot would raise these prices somewhat, but the successive reductions in the insurance floor will be far greater. These prices will drop. PI, as near as I can tell, won't play into this at all except perhaps adding a short term sink for low end mineral stockpiles.
On the other hand, for minerals in lowsec, there aren't a lot of macro users. The T1 gear (and rogue drone drop reprocessing) loss will significantly outweigh the loss of insurance value. These prices will climb, in multiplicative proportions in some cases. Most people are expecting this which is why high end prices have gone nuts (nox anyone?)
It'll be interesting to see whether this solves the lack of use of low sec problem. My guess is that you'll see mining corps take in more PVP players for the purposes of low sec runs. (Some already do this, those that do will profit greatly until everyone gets into the act.)
Net result: Corps already running low sec ops will profit greatly. Their business model will be copied by everyone not running marcros. The Yarr-ites will be pleased with the influx to lowsec. The miners will employ carebear PvPers to protect them.
(NB - if there are mass bannings of macro users to accompany the patch, this end result doesn't happen nearly as much)
|
Jasdemi
Caldari Caldari Frontiers
|
Posted - 2010.05.16 11:50:00 -
[7]
What makes this question big?
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2010.05.16 16:22:00 -
[8]
Originally by: admiral fovios Net result: Corps already running low sec ops will profit greatly. Their business model will be copied by everyone not running marcros.
Um.... errr... wow.
Wealth, howsoever got, in Eve makes Lords of morons and gentlemen of thieves; Aptitude and intellect are needless here; 'Tis impudence and money that grants fame. |
Geezelbub
|
Posted - 2010.05.16 18:32:00 -
[9]
Originally by: admiral fovios CCP knows. My guess is that you'll see mining corps take in more PVP players for the purposes of low sec runs. (Some already do this, those that do will profit greatly until everyone gets into the act.) The miners will employ carebear PvPers to protect them.
(NB - if there are mass bannings of macro users to accompany the patch, this end result doesn't happen nearly as much)
LOL...what a tard.
|
Professor Leech
Transmetropolitan
|
Posted - 2010.05.16 23:26:00 -
[10]
Originally by: admiral fovios
Net result: Corps already running low sec ops will profit greatly. Their business model will be copied by everyone not running marcros. The Yarr-ites will be pleased with the influx to lowsec. The miners will employ carebear PvPers to protect them.
Nope.
Originally by: Crawe DeRaven this thread is obviously going places
|
|
Clair Bear
Ursine Research and Production
|
Posted - 2010.05.17 02:12:00 -
[11]
Mining in lowsec will never be "worth it." It is absolutely positively NOT POSSIBLE to secure and keep a lowsec system free of gankers. Doubly so since most of lowsec has NPC stations.
And even if it was possible to deploy bubbles at NPC station free chokepoints in lowsec -- keeping a PvP fit blob (eve PvP is mostly about hot blob on blob action) sitting around idle and bored would necessitate nocx prices at somewhere around 10k isk/unit.
"Mining corps" will be better off converting to mission mining (read: mining rats with guns) and reprocessing the meta1-4 rat droppings. Sure, the net take per mission will be lower -- that just means send in 10x as many missioners.
And in summary, bigger blobs are the answer. Now what was the question? |
Snow Banshee
Amarr Ruatha Holding
|
Posted - 2010.05.17 13:03:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Companion Trollin The big answer: 42
discuss
" The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy "
|
Bath Sheeba
Gallente Another Success Story
|
Posted - 2010.05.19 18:13:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Snow Banshee
Originally by: Companion Trollin The big answer: 42
discuss
" The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy "
The question is "What is 9 times 5?"
|
Letrange
Minmatar Chaosstorm Corporation Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium
|
Posted - 2010.05.19 18:30:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Clair Bear Mining in lowsec will never be "worth it." It is absolutely positively NOT POSSIBLE to secure and keep a lowsec system free of gankers. Doubly so since most of lowsec has NPC stations.
And even if it was possible to deploy bubbles at NPC station free chokepoints in lowsec -- keeping a PvP fit blob (eve PvP is mostly about hot blob on blob action) sitting around idle and bored would necessitate nocx prices at somewhere around 10k isk/unit.
"Mining corps" will be better off converting to mission mining (read: mining rats with guns) and reprocessing the meta1-4 rat droppings. Sure, the net take per mission will be lower -- that just means send in 10x as many missioners.
This, the value of low sec ores needs to be at a MINIMUM twice as high as the best high sec ore. Reasoning: Even IF combat pilots were able to control low sec space long enough to so an entire mining op you come to the split issue. Assuming a 1:1 ratio industrial pilots to combat pilots you'd be splitting the take (ore refined to mins) between twice as many bodies. And that's just to break even with high sec mining.
Then you add in the fact that under the current way combat works in low sec it is impossible for combat pilots to stop a pirate from killing miners and you need to up the profit ratio to adjust for the increased losses. At the end of the day the math works out to "screw low sec".
|
Entrepaz
|
Posted - 2010.05.19 18:32:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Bath Sheeba
Originally by: Snow Banshee
Originally by: Companion Trollin The big answer: 42
discuss
" The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy "
The question is "What is 9 times 5?"
*smacks Face*
|
Tyrone Bighams
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2010.05.19 20:58:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Letrange
Originally by: Clair Bear Mining in lowsec will never be "worth it." It is absolutely positively NOT POSSIBLE to secure and keep a lowsec system free of gankers. Doubly so since most of lowsec has NPC stations.
And even if it was possible to deploy bubbles at NPC station free chokepoints in lowsec -- keeping a PvP fit blob (eve PvP is mostly about hot blob on blob action) sitting around idle and bored would necessitate nocx prices at somewhere around 10k isk/unit.
"Mining corps" will be better off converting to mission mining (read: mining rats with guns) and reprocessing the meta1-4 rat droppings. Sure, the net take per mission will be lower -- that just means send in 10x as many missioners.
This, the value of low sec ores needs to be at a MINIMUM twice as high as the best high sec ore. Reasoning: Even IF combat pilots were able to control low sec space long enough to so an entire mining op you come to the split issue. Assuming a 1:1 ratio industrial pilots to combat pilots you'd be splitting the take (ore refined to mins) between twice as many bodies. And that's just to break even with high sec mining.
Then you add in the fact that under the current way combat works in low sec it is impossible for combat pilots to stop a pirate from killing miners and you need to up the profit ratio to adjust for the increased losses. At the end of the day the math works out to "screw low sec".
yeah both of these statements are wrong. to prevent gankers from killing mining barges, the barges just need to fit limited tanks while the guards utilize EWAR to break the locks of the pirates and keep them there while gank boats destroy them. say two blackbirds and a couple of gunboats. CCP. Hear my prayer from atop your bone strewn tower! Boost Gallente, for they have become free kills in todays fleet warfare due to poor range, ineffective webs, and terrible speed! |
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2010.05.20 00:09:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Tyrone Bighams to prevent gankers from killing mining barges, the barges just need to fit limited tanks while the guards utilize EWAR to break the locks of the pirates and keep them there while gank boats destroy them. say two blackbirds and a couple of gunboats.
In hisec, we call that fleet of guardian ships "CONCORD". History has shown that CONCORD are 100% ineffective in preventing alpha strike suicide ganks, and CONCORD has special game mechanics on their side: you can't see the ships on scanners or in local until you trigger their arrival, and you can't blob, evade or escape CONCORD because they will always bring a bigger blob.
[Aussie players: join ANZAC channel] |
Aurelius Valentius
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2010.05.20 04:03:00 -
[18]
Solution - Hulk + 3x T3 Stips + Veldspar + many many hours = ISK, take ISK, look at ISK... Blink... Look at ISK again, decide you don't need anything becuase you have the above, and that is all you do - so no need to spend ISKs, over the life time you lead you will have ISKs, more hours, more ISK... and think of all the time you will have to surf p*rn with the IGB and masterbate.
...LOL.
|
Vilgan i'Lakin
Pirates and Ninjas
|
Posted - 2010.05.20 05:57:00 -
[19]
why would lowsec mining ever be worth it when 0.0 has the same ore, better ore, and much more security?
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2010.05.20 09:58:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Mara Rinn [In hisec, we call that fleet of guardian ships "CONCORD". History has shown that CONCORD are 100% ineffective in preventing alpha strike suicide ganks.
Two sentences that do not go together. No surprise here though. Originally by: Vilgan i'Lakin why would lowsec mining ever be worth it when 0.0 has the same ore, better ore, and much more security?
Going to sidestep "why" and go into "how". Remove all belts, replace with scannable belts but have an acceleration gate to enter. This creates a defensible bottleneck that the PVP types can play fun with while giving miners a chance to mine. It does not create true safety though I suspect that when the last defender goes down he'll warn his fellows. Of course if there are some very slow to turn & warp ships or if some of the attackers push through on the gate while the bottleneck fight goes on... miners won't be so safe and tucked in.
Wealth, howsoever got, in Eve makes Lords of morons and gentlemen of thieves; Aptitude and intellect are needless here; 'Tis impudence and money that grants fame. |
|
Companion Trollin
You are going too fast
|
Posted - 2010.05.20 10:32:00 -
[21]
This thread meets the highest MD quality standards.
Never stop posting.
♥
Originally by: CCP Shadow Off-topic posts dealing with sexual orientation have been removed. Please keep this discussion on-topic.
Thanks.
-- Shadow
|
Kell Braugh
Minute to Midnight
|
Posted - 2010.05.26 17:08:00 -
[22]
Remove local in 0.0.
It will make low sec actually worth while to mine in (still having local) and furthermore increase the need for 0.0 based operations to also employ some type of defense greater than an afk scout 2 jumps out.
|
Tiberizzle
|
Posted - 2010.05.27 00:20:00 -
[23]
Remove high slots in low sec, make it slappers-only sec.
|
Clair Bear
Ursine Research and Production
|
Posted - 2010.05.27 01:48:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Clair Bear on 27/05/2010 01:48:36
Originally by: Tyrone Bighams
yeah both of these statements are wrong. to prevent gankers from killing mining barges, the barges just need to fit limited tanks while the guards utilize EWAR to break the locks of the pirates and keep them there while gank boats destroy them. say two blackbirds and a couple of gunboats.
First: no matter how many guards you have attackers will still have the advantage. They can engage only when terms favor them, and using fits/ships chosen to counter whatever strategy you come up with. In other words, there will be always more soft targets than attackers.
Second: explain to me why I even need to lock a mining barge. I can easily bump them around as they bask in the glory of my smartbombs. Worst case I only gank a few clustered around the orca, best case I get them all.
Third: good luck having the combat pilots at keyboard and alert for the hours and hours and hours a mining op takes. It takes all of 7 seconds for me to gank a hulk in highsec. And yes, I realize lock time of a megathron >>> that of a cruiser. But thinking about the perpetual high alert requirement hours on end: do you think the response time of all guards will always be good enough? And in summary, bigger blobs are the answer. Now what was the question? |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |