Originally by: Abulurd Boniface

---

That merry time is again upon us. After the wonderful chiming of the Christmas bells it is now the season for the sounds of hot lead [or the ordnance of your preference] to hit the fragile shell of the exhumer and mighty groans of frustration to erupt from the throats of miners who see their 150/200 million investment being reduced to really charmingly rendered debris amidst the harsh, vast beauty that is the New Eden scenery.

As ever when the light of such dire times [for miners] reaches us many tactics are mentioned that will help alleviate the situation:
- tank the Hulk/Mackinaw
- fly a fleet of ships that will be able to tackle/destroy the attacker before they can do their deadly chore
- align the ship so that warp out is easier [which is actually never a bad idea]
- some brilliant scheme to increase the effectiveness of exhumers in huge numbers

At any rate the miner's game is livened up by having their experience raised to that of level 5 missions while hanging in ye randomme mining belt every time they go out there to eke out an existence in the EVE demesne.

The chortling attacker greatly appreciates the fine irony of calling a miner in a defenseless ship a carebear while they attack them with a 100% chance of victory. Risk versus reward, is it not, my wonderful ganking friends?

A remedy against this commendable game mechanic which I rarely, if ever, see mentioned is not of tactic deployment which will rarely work for the lone miner / small mining corp, but rather basic economics.

We have seen the prices of Hulks rise by up to 125% post Dominion deployment, and they are now actively hunted so as to inflict massive losses for trivial cost. Fun for all. I wonder what will happen to the prices of Exhumers post "Hulkageddon". I would be very surprised if the price was not raised even further.

Now, in any working economy the cost of doing business drives the price of goods. In real terms the risk of mining has become so expensive that it has to be reflected in the cost of goods produced. Therefore the only sensible approach to covering the cost of mining is to sell the product at a price point which reflects the real risk endured while acquiring it. For that reason I propose selling Tritanium at 100/1000 isk/unit. If one producer does that with a small amount of product, they will price themselves into oblivion. If enough producers do it, they will increase the average price of Tritanium and they will be able to recuperate the cost of their loss sooner. Tritanium need not be the only product affected, the price point is just a suggestion.

The proposition is for the overall raising of the price of basic bulk goods to reflect the cost of acquiring the bulk good. It is sound economic practice to be properly compensated for the risks endured. It is also a form of warfare for those to whom warfare does not come easy. Pain becomes more bearable when it is shared by as many people as possible.

---