| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
   |
Posted - 2010.03.15 04:27:00 -
[1]
For those of you are unaware CCP has made some changes to the insurance payout of all T1 ships on the test server.
The minerals that are required to build a ship remain the same but the payout has been reduced by about 33-35%.
So for a Rokh the insurance payout would be about 105M ISK, and the platinum insurance is 31M.
The current Rokh payout is 165M and the platinum insurance is 49.5M.
With a Rokh costing about 110M to make, losing a ship will cost at least 30% of the manufacturing price.
This does mean that suicide ganking will become a lot more expensive.
Is that what you miners want?? Less suicide ganking at any price
The trouble is that there is a massive over supply of minerals and the prices have been kept artificially high due to platinum insurance, or what is called the Insurance Exchange Rate (IER) or insurance fraud.
example
If you take a Rokh and platinum insure it and get blown up you recieve 165 M ISK from insurance.
The insurance costs 49.5M, so if at any time it costs less than 115.5M ISK to build or buy a Rokh you can make a profit by buying the ship, insuring it and self destructing.
This artificial floor of 115.5M ISK in minerals was kept by people like me using the IER by buying huge quantities of minerals to make Rokh's and other battleships to make a profit.
Major producers would stop buying the minerals when the cost went over 115.5m ISK.
This artificial floor would hold the overall mineral basket in place but allowing fluctuations in price of some of the minerals. If some minerals went down in price others would go up and vice-versa.
Back to Insurance Changes
With the *potential* changes to insurance there is no longer an artificial floor to hold the minerals prices up. It is likely there will be a collapse in prices until it reaches the new IER which is about 35% lower overall.
A collapse in mineral prices will mean a huge reduction in mining earnings.
Is making a general insurance change the answer if you suffer a collapse in earnings?
Mining in high sec could be worth 2-4 M ISK per hour?
|
Zartrader
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 04:51:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Zartrader on 15/03/2010 04:52:27
Insurance as it stands is broken and it effectively supports macroers and ISK sellers as well as keeping ships at overinflated prices. So it needs to be reduced. It's a bit like all those farming subsidies and food mountains some countries have, someone has to pay for it and in this case it's the market balance that is completely out of kilter. Reducing insurance will allow CCP to introduce other mechanics that won't immediately be screwed over by this false bottom to the market.
Also I assume you realise that ship prices will adjust to the new Insurance payouts which will lead into more ships being bought. This will hopefully start to soak up the excess mining capacity and settle on a price decided by the market, not some arbitrary value as it is now. Then you can decide if mining is worth doing or not. As things stand now Insurance stops CCP from doing a lot of things with the game.
|
Akita T
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 04:51:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Akita T on 15/03/2010 04:52:35
__
A quick refresher on how mineral pricing works, in case you don't frequent MD much.
Basically, what cosmoray here above already said, but with a bit more details in case you're still not convinced he's right.
__
 Originally by: Zartrader
Reducing insurance will allow CCP to introduce other mechanics that won't immediately be screwed over by this false bottom to the market.
The problem is, if they make the changes to the insurance system BEFORE they introduce those other mechanics you speak of, this will end up horribly in the time between.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting
_
|
Whacky Iraqi
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 04:55:00 -
[4]
i would switch to L4 missions but they are moving those to low sec only.
|
Zartrader
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 04:56:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Zartrader on 15/03/2010 05:00:04
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 15/03/2010 04:52:35
__
A quick refresher on how mineral pricing works, in case you don't frequent MD much.
Basically, what cosmoray here above already said, but with a bit more details in case you're still not convinced he's right.
__
Originally by: Zartrader
Reducing insurance will allow CCP to introduce other mechanics that won't immediately be screwed over by this false bottom to the market.
The problem is, if they make the changes to the insurance system BEFORE they introduce those other mechanics you speak of, this will end up horribly in the time between.
I understand the basket concept. I'm saying he is looking at it purely from a miners point of view, Im giving him one from another point of view. I'm not disagreeing with him on what he says at all. Not all answers on forums are to disagree, some give another view point.
EDIT: Yes agree, CCP are very slow at bringing in new balancing mechanics and that will screw things over if they don't. That's why I did assume they were bringing in Tech 2 Insurance at least in the next patch. I also hope they keep on top of macro miners because ultimately those scumbags are making things a lot worse for legitimate miners. They seem to be ignored though in all the posts I see about this.
|
Akita T
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 05:00:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Akita T on 15/03/2010 05:03:40
Originally by: Whacky Iraqi
i would switch to L4 missions but they are moving those to low sec only.
Source ? I mean, official dev post or a dev blog, NOT "I heard it from somewhere" or "that makes sense to me".
Originally by: Zartrader
I'm saying he is looking at it purely from a miners point of view, Im giving him one from another point of view.
Considering miners would end up mostly affected by this, while the rest would barely notice it in the long run (yes, a lot ofpeople will be affected in the short run, but eventually the effects would re-normalize and mostly go back to a situation similar to that we have now), so the miner viewpoint is the one that really matters for this issue.
Originally by: Zartrader
Yes agree, CCP are very slow at bringing in new balancing mechanics and that will screw things over if they don't. [...] I also hope they keep on top of macro miners because ultimately those scumbags are making things a lot worse for legitimate miners. They seem to be ignored though in all the posts I see about this.
Glad we agree on some things.
As for macro miners... let's differentiate between RMT-motivated macro miners (which CCP takes care of eventually) and ISK-motivated macro miners (which CCP has a much more difficult time with, to the point where some actually end up never punished).
Bottom line, you will NEVER get rid of the second type of macro-miners, and those will be the only ones left standing in the mining profession if this insurance change gets through.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting
_
|
Zartrader
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 05:06:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Zartrader on 15/03/2010 05:10:06
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Whacky Iraqi
i would switch to L4 missions but they are moving those to low sec only.
Source ? I mean, official dev post or a dev blog, NOT "I heard it from somewhere" or "that makes sense to me".
Originally by: Zartrader
EDIT: Yes agree, CCP are very slow at bringing in new balancing mechanics and that will screw things over if they don't. That's why I did assume they were bringing in Tech 2 Insurance at least in the next patch.
Considering miners would end up mostly affected by this, while the rest would barely notice it in the long run (yes, a lot ofpeople will be affected in the short run, but eventually the effects would re-normalize and mostly go back to a situation similar to that we have now), so the miner viewpoint is the one that really matters for this issue.
We are all affected if the current price fixing sets the market rate (which it does) for most products.
To balance they also need to reduce mission income and mission loot processing, but I bet they don't. Or they could hit macro miners more, or they could introduce new mechanics. At the moment new mechanics is not an option. That affects me.
EDIT: Atika. Read what I said properly please, your jumping on what I say as If I'm attacking the Op or too stupid to know what works in the game just because I don't mention it. Read better and stop assuming everyone who posts here is just to argue. This is a very complex subject and to have to put pages of qualifiers into simple statements is not practical.
|
Lors Dornick
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 05:19:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Zartrader
Edited by: Zartrader on 15/03/2010 04:52:27
Insurance as it stands is broken and it effectively supports macroers and ISK sellers as well as keeping ships at overinflated prices. So it needs to be reduced. It's a bit like all those farming subsidies and food mountains some countries have, someone has to pay for it and in this case it's the market balance that is completely out of kilter. Reducing insurance will allow CCP to introduce other mechanics that won't immediately be screwed over by this false bottom to the market.
Wouldn't a very simple and quite natural change be to switch from a fixed and imaginary 'base price' to a more relevant current market value?
It must be a technical peanut to calculate the avg current price of a certain ship type (since the server has access to all relevant data) and use that as base for both policy cost and payout of the insurance.
The only technical issue would be that each insured ship would have to have it's insured value attached to it.
That would allow for a more natural market based on supply and demand instead of, as stated above, government subsidies.
It would most likely create quite some turbulence on the market for a bit and possibly an upheaval in the income balance between different roles or occupations.
But would most likely be better than the current situation and easier to balance.
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 05:38:00 -
[9]
These Science and Industry guys understand the free market better than MD! I'm coming here more often  Just goes to show that the miners and industrialists who produce the real goods have never wanted a subsidy in the first place 
|
Akita T
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 05:44:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Zartrader
EDIT: Atika. Read what I said properly please, your jumping on what I say as If I'm attacking the Op or too stupid to know what works in the game just because I don't mention it. Read better and stop assuming everyone who posts here is just to argue. This is a very complex subject and to have to put pages of qualifiers into simple statements is not practical.
I'm not directly saying you're wrong either... you're probably reading too much into what I said (also, see edits) assuming I want to prove you wrong or somesuch when I was actually half-agreeing (silently), half-elaborating (in a probably mildly hostile manner due to other factors).
Sadly the "pages of qualifiers" are needed, because a lot of the "arguing" that goes on is caused by slightly different unspoken premises for each person, which may or may not be correct (and sometimes, they're not even mutually exclusive).
And since this is not (quite) and exact science (yet // for us), we have to make a lot of footnotes least we be completely misunderstood (and even if we make a lot of them, we might still be misunderstood).
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting
_
|
Mahke
Aeon Of Strife
Discord.
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 06:08:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Liberty Eternal
These Science and Industry guys understand the free market better than MD! I'm coming here more often Just goes to show that the miners and industrialists who produce the real goods have never wanted a subsidy in the first place
FREE MARKETS FREE PEOPLE
:internet spaceship republican:
this will end well for miners because they will have the FREEDOM to sell their minerals at whatever [low] price the market will bear
|
Borun Tal
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 06:09:00 -
[12]
Whole lotta crap and no facts.
Next?
|
Whacky Iraqi
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 06:13:00 -
[13]
I will be petitioning Obama. We need a Mineral Bailout pronto.
|
Tau Cabalander
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 06:19:00 -
[14]
Originally by: cosmoray
Is that what you miners want?? Less suicide ganking at any price
As a miner, no, that's not what I want.
I want CONCORD kills to be 0 insurance paid-out. Consequences.
I would prefer insurance payouts encourage PvP, so either raising the payout or lowering the insurance cost sounds good to me.
I've not done any analysis as to what this would do to the markets.
I also would like more EHP on the Hulk, and a bigger drone bay and a drone damage bonus, but that is another matter.
|
Borun Tal
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 06:21:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Whacky Iraqi
I will be petitioning Obama. We need a Mineral Bailout pronto.
I agree. Implement an across-the-board 15% tax on everything for everyone for everything. "Yes We Can!!" (And how's that working out for YOU?)
|
Mahke
Aeon Of Strife
Discord.
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 06:51:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Whacky Iraqi
I will be petitioning Obama. We need a Mineral Bailout pronto.
confirmed I will be bailing out the poor miners by flushing 787 billion isk down a toilet.
|
Vins Chicago
Gallente
Regent Laboratories
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 07:05:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Lors Dornick
Wouldn't a very simple and quite natural change be to switch from a fixed and imaginary 'base price' to a more relevant current market value?
It must be a technical peanut to calculate the avg current price of a certain ship type (since the server has access to all relevant data) and use that as base for both policy cost and payout of the insurance.
The only technical issue would be that each insured ship would have to have it's insured value attached to it.
That would allow for a more natural market based on supply and demand instead of, as stated above, government subsidies.
Simple? Sure. Technical peanut? Probably. Now, if you want to use average current price or fair market value or whatever, figure out a way to keep me, Cosmoray, and countless others from stockpiling several hundred Rokhs or Abaddons or whatever at mfg cost, then selling them for 1 billion isk each to an alt we've created, or a corp-mate, in order to drive the average market value of that ship model way up, so we can then insure and self-destruct the ships we built and collect 600 million on ships that cost us 100 million each to build. Forget the government subsidy, I'll just subsidize myself. Average volume on Abaddons is about 60/day in The Forge, BTW.
We could get around that by using average cost of the mineral input into each ship, but then I'd just sell sell myself the minerals at hugely inflated prices (the alt game, again) and wind up at the same spot.
The only consistent proponent of widespread "insurance reform" I've come across is Aleks Karrde of Noir., and I think that just comes out of some academic desire to see a free market. Everyone else seems to either want payouts removed for being Concordokkened (yeah, why not, I mean, Dokken was kinda cool back in the day), or to just leave everything the frak alone (preferable).
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 11:00:00 -
[18]
Every surrogate staples we have to keep the economy alive have two properties:
- they are staples, they are artificially keeping a status quo that should not exist
- they are staples, if they were not here, the game would crash to the ripple consequences of having "free minerals".
There are many proposals that are more intelligent and modern staples but they are just that: staples.
The only way to fix the issues with overproduction is to attack it at the root and remove overproduction. Something that T2 is more or less achieving, so it's possible.
Removing overproduction would make mining more profitable, it would even let the current insurance mechanic be valid since the prices would float above it.
Look at how insignias work in Minnie land, they have a NPC hard floor at i.e. 750k pu and people sell them at 800k +, that is the offer is healthily below demand and a true market can exist.
With less minerals a similar scenario would happen.
Less minerals require:
- a new and undisclosed huge minerals sink, this is why the next expansion (not randomly considered to be "industrial") could play an undisclosed yet major role.
- rework in the current mineral faucets so that they peak at sligthly below the demand. This could easily be implemented at CCP side by using a moving average (removing "smart" outliers) if not an ATR to setup a roids and loot respawn ratio which is a function of how much has been consumed.
The function would also be ceiled not to yield more than some sanity value, in case alliances team up to artificially inflate minerals consumption or the slope of reaction of the function could be made Brownian and slow (or it's derivative made to go against its principal trend to discourage players "dice weighting").
-
Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read
http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Carniflex
StarHunt
Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 11:27:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Carniflex on 15/03/2010 11:33:38
Interesting.
However - it is not certain that the price will fall flat against the new 'floor'. If it would then the hi sec ore mining would end up roughly in the same ballpark as hi sec ice mining. Ice mining is 'easier' to do tho (as it is less attention intensive).
It is also entirely possible, that if price falls flat against the new floor then it can actually lower the mineral generation in hi sec as at that point one might actually get better rewards from L3 missions in overtanked drake with mediocre skills.
From my personal perspective: On the positive side capital ship hulls would get considerably lower. Is the same insurance change applied also to capital ships ? On negative side (from 0.0 guy perspective) tho one would need to actually start paying for battleships lost in fleet battles. At the moment only hassle is getting them to 0.0 and that is also relatively easy. Buy the minerals or battleships (melt the battleships), compress to correct modules (Around 1:22 to 1:30 compression ratio), JF to 0.0, melt, build BS for fleet stuff. Bigger capital blobs 2-3 months down the road might also be seen as negative thing ofc. Dreadnaught hull would be roughly 850 mil if minerals hit new floor and carrier would be ~450 mil for hull and ~ 130 for fighters. If price would reach the new floor.
Edit: On the other hand, if capital ships would get cheaper and one might see more capital engagements and as a result it could also push up the ice consumption (as no doubt some miners would shift to ice). You can consume easily enough ice products in one evening of capital engagement that would last large tower for a month. Per ship involved. Stuff like moving your blob 50 ly to the target, hitting the target and then, if you survive, going back 50 ly.
So in this sense the change can have the effect I think CCP has in mind with this one - ie prices 'floating' somewhere above the hard floor.
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 12:07:00 -
[20]
How low will veldspar drop before miners stop mining it? People still mine omber because it's "better" than veldspar. Macro miners might end up gradually shifting their macros to whatever's the next most profitable ore (but they're not doing it now, otherwise there'd be an abundance of pyerite).
How low will scordite drop before miners stop mining it? What if CCP also removes unnamed T1 drops from NPCs?
Remember the CCP comment about this issue:
|| Mineral || Ore% || Loot% || Drone Compounds% ||
||-----------||------||-------||------------------||
|| Tritanium || 46% || 43% || 11% ||
|| Pyerite || 29% || 60% || 10% ||
|| Mexallon || 30% || 59% || 11% ||
|| Isogen || 21% || 56% || 23% ||
|| Nocxium || 18% || 32% || 51% ||
|| Zydrine || 43% || 18% || 40% ||
|| Megacyte || 44% || 39% || 16% ||
|| Morphite || 77% || 1% || 22% ||
* Ore is minerals from the asteroid ores
* loot is modules, ships, charges, drones for example.
* drone compounds are loot items from rogue drones
If meta 0 loot (and drone poo?) was to be removed from NPC drops, this would remove a significant supply of mid-range minerals. No, I don't believe that 59% of all Mexallon on the market comes from reprocessed loot - I believe at least half of that amount is things built specifically for mineral compression. Even if only 20% of the mexallon on the market is from reprocessed NPC drops, doesn't that still mean that there will be a significant drop in the supply of that material?
What if drone poo was replaced with parts that get researched planetside to produce some kind of NPC good for T2 drone production?
Let's say that between meta 0 loot and drone poo, we find that about 1/4 of Isogen production disappears, 1/2 of Noxcium production disappears, and 1/3 of Mexallon production disappears. What happens then?
Will veldspar and scordite hit rock bottom due to oversupply by macro miners? Will Jaspet and Omber suddenly become attractive ores to mine? Will miners actually be able to make a living by probing down grav sites and mining out the omber instead of turning their noses up at it? Will Kernite be worthwhile harvesting for purposes other than feeding to level 4 storyline missions?
Will (non-carebear but financially clueless) players previously averse to PvP be more willing to participate due to the lower perceived cost of flying a T1 ship into certain death? Will players currently participating in PvP be able to afford to blow up more ships each play session?
Has anyone checked whether the volume of certain ores or minerals has changed in parallel with this change to insurance?
[Aussie players: join channels ANZAC or AUSSIES] |
Akita T
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 12:20:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
The only way to fix the issues with overproduction is to attack it at the root and remove overproduction.
Revert the Veldspar respawn rate boost, to cut off the change that completely tipped the scales in the first place.
Replace rogue drones with a random mix of other NPCs in the drone regions, to remove that overabundance too ; or alternatively, have them drop something else instead of alloys that reprocess into minerals (or mix drone alloys in with something else too).
Heavily decrease the decay of the industrial index so that you don't practically force people to mine just for the sake of not losing the opportunity to mine.
In fact, just bloody REVERT the industrial index direction, REDUCING it whenever stuff gets mined, and constantly increasing it in time if nobody mines. Have it so that all industrial upgrades can be placed regardless of current index level, and top-cap the natural increase to the currently installed industrial upgrade.
Last but not least, make wormhole space far more sleper/gas heavy and far less ABC-heavy.
And voila, problems solved !
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting
_
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 12:48:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 15/03/2010 12:51:17
Quote:
Macro miners might end up gradually shifting their macros to whatever's the next most profitable ore (but they're not doing it now, otherwise there'd be an abundance of pyerite).
Having multiple relic Hulks sometimes I still dust off I have visited a good amount of systems.
There were two constants after June 19 2009: untouched huge trit roids, zero scordite after few hours past downtime, even in remote systems.
Pyerite is actually following a proper supply vs demand route, it's being mined out but still not enough to fill the demand, so the price goes up (be it because of the suicide BS insurance fraud or whatever).
Now that looting is much less convenient than once was (mainly due to salvaging crash), you'll notice in your graph how pyerite got a "resist hole" exactly on the mining and drone compound sides, so it relied in being off looted drops, which as I said they dropped in popularity.
In brief: macros and not, and even web sites suggestions changed their setup to mine scordite, but there's not enough scordite to dig.
Quote:
Revert the Veldspar respawn rate boost, to cut off the change that completely tipped the scales in the first place.
You know this will eventually happen, this is how CCP crashed RMT botted mining so it is ultimately up to CCP to determine when (and if) to undo the respawn boost.
Quote:
Heavily decrease the decay of the industrial index so that you don't practically force people to mine just for the sake of not losing the opportunity to mine.
Not going to happen. Cannot put only ABC because they'd crash even harder. Still CCP is forcing players hands at forcing them in 0.0 to keep up with the grinding to keep up the index.
If they decrease the decay, the Hulks will just get back to hi sec, ABC will be too low value to be worth the risk and their increased generation will propel (also) hi sec trit value as further incentive to get back to hi sec macroing.
On the other side, by "forcing" miners in 0.0 CCP gets rid of some more botters, people are less prone to launch macros when it's quite possible they find themselves in a clone vat when they get back home.
Quote:
Last but not least, make wormhole space far more sleper/gas heavy and far less ABC-heavy.
WHs are fine as is and they are self-sufficient.
What is wrong is to have Sleepers so easily defeated at grav sites and thus making it "quasi-hi-sec".
Putting respawning Sleepers forcing continuous surveillance would rise the cost of WH opportunity so that they'd become a more looped in itself economy.
Edit: about drone regions: once again, seclusion could be a decent control for the flow of minerals. Making it harder to take the stuff off there than employing it directly on site could work. The difficult part is how to make it harder for those drone poo to get out without driving people out of those systems.
Since they seem inhabitated by heavy botters, making drones have sleepers AI could heavily offset the production.
-
Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read
http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Akita T
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 13:24:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Quote:
Revert the Veldspar respawn rate boost, to cut off the change that completely tipped the scales in the first place.
You know this will eventually happen, this is how CCP crashed RMT botted mining so it is ultimately up to CCP to determine when (and if) to undo the respawn boost.
Actually, the boosted the Veld respawn rate after the big first wave of mass-bannings because they were afraid Tritanium prices would skyrocket if macro-miners would no longer stream enough of it into the economy... or at least that was the stated intention.
We all know just how nice that turned out, and goes to show, the RMT-motivated kind of macro-miners were never really that much of a problem.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting
_
|
Mielono
Caldari
SWARTA
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 13:24:00 -
[24]
I am a bit frightened of the idea of the market bottoming out because of changes in insurance prices. But that which does not kill me only serves to make me stronger. As a miner I have gone through a big upheaval in just the last 6 months in the profits from my work. There is a point where I was making more as a new player mining in an osprey than I do now in a hulk. The idea of a more free flowing market for minerals that does not depend on the suicide rate is exciting but at the same time I am fearful about the possible ramifications for my own personal profit.
I would like to see the new update coming bring in a mineral sink so that we have a more market driven economy for minerals. Seeing as how right now all we have is the minimum price set by insurance fraud it would be fascinating for the amount of oversupply of all the minerals to dry up at once and see where we can go from there. I am for reducing drone poop drops and somehow changing the amount reprocessed by t1 loot but I only see these as stopgap measures to help our side of the game. What I would like to see is for a massive call on minerals and a sustainable call for minerals to come about so that there is a larger mineral sink added into the game then there currently is available.
I will continue mining everyday that I can because I like the idea of building things, to adding to the massive economy happening around me. But at the same time miners got to eat, and for many of us active miners it is getting to the point that if we do not have a massive bot fleet floating around theres almost no way for us to individually make an impact such as how a producer or trader can.
Also... I want Veldspar to cost less than trit or at least someone to explain to me how that works.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 14:09:00 -
[25]
A comment about cap ships.
On Sisi the base value of cap ships has been reduced by 28% with insurance going down a similar amount, but the cap ships cost the same to produce.
This makes cap ships loss a lot more painful for corps/alliances.
This would further reduce the mineral market. The large cap producers step out of the market for a month or so and the mineral market comes down fast.
I can't see any other situation than the mineral price setting itself against the new insurance payout.
My fix for high sec insurance. Zero insurance if concord is involved.
|
Zedah Zoid
Nutz N Boltz
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 15:10:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
[snip]
Since they seem inhabitated by heavy botters, making drones have sleepers AI could heavily offset the production.
This would be nice, IMHO. I see no downside.
|
Roscojameson
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 15:38:00 -
[27]
I find it kinda silly that you can self-destruct your ship and get an insurance payment out of it. Just imagine the conversation for that claim.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 15:41:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 15/03/2010 15:42:42
Quote:
Actually, the boosted the Veld respawn rate after the big first wave of mass-bannings because they were afraid Tritanium prices would skyrocket if macro-miners would no longer stream enough of it into the economy... or at least that was the stated intention
I don't think this is the real reason.
They mass banned lots of bots but needed to prevent them from just returning and re-establish with a smile on the face, like always.
So they employed a "scorched earth" approach by making mining "miserable" and thus attempting to deter botters to get back mining. Those who would not be deterred, would earn half than before anyway.
The new insurance would be another stab to slow the botters again (they WILL eventually get back, but their ROI goes lower and lower).
I think CCP's top priority is to remove RMT farmers and then botters, the whole sov industry index smells of attempt to make 0.0 the new place to mine (and since there's some risk, less prone to botting).
At the same time they want to implement comets and generally hard to bot stuff for elsewhere.
Imho in CCP's plans players economy imho comes after economy breakers, they want to remove the former, then eventually make mining "fair" for the normal players.
Quote:
Also... I want Veldspar to cost less than trit or at least someone to explain to me how that works.
Veldspar is way bulkier than trit but it's required by certain missions and thus people will pay for the disturb of carrying it to their mission hub.
Quote:
This makes cap ships loss a lot more painful for corps/alliances
This goes along the line of being very very vary at making > cruiser hull new and powerful ships available (in fact even T2 battleships were made to not bring in some new juggernaught).
It's a good thing imho, it prevents ships escalation / MUDflation.
EvE unlike many other MMOs, cannot perform "gear resets" once per new expansion so they need to continuously tone down the ever increasing efficiency and productivity of the players.
On an unrelated matter, isn't it fun how MMO producers have to brainstorm how to reset players efforts so that we are literally being squirrels endlessy running and improving over a wheel that drops every accrued advantage and resets them back to the starting point?
-
Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read
http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
SephiXan
Amarr
Kiroshi Group
death from above..
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 18:48:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Tau Cabalander
Originally by: cosmoray
Is that what you miners want?? Less suicide ganking at any price
As a miner, no, that's not what I want.
I want CONCORD kills to be 0 insurance paid-out. Consequences.
I would prefer insurance payouts encourage PvP, so either raising the payout or lowering the insurance cost sounds good to me.
I've not done any analysis as to what this would do to the markets.
I also would like more EHP on the Hulk, and a bigger drone bay and a drone damage bonus, but that is another matter.
By voiding insurance on suicide ganking mineral prices will drop in their value. So you as a miner will be hurt, which is what this whole discussion is about.
Players are stubbornly wanting voided insurance as they cannot accept their own losses, but they have no idea how it will affect the larger picture.
Fact is that thanks to those suicide gankings the market is stable. Only times prices change is when CCP changes the game.
|
Tau Cabalander
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 19:27:00 -
[30]
Originally by: SephiXan
By voiding insurance on suicide ganking mineral prices will drop in their value. So you as a miner will be hurt, which is what this whole discussion is about.
Players are stubbornly wanting voided insurance as they cannot accept their own losses, but they have no idea how it will affect the larger picture.
Fact is that thanks to those suicide gankings the market is stable. Only times prices change is when CCP changes the game.
Actually, I don't care about my personal ship or ISK losses.
CONCORD shouldn't be toothless, even if that affects prices. CONCORD is supposed to be a deterrent, and currently they are not effective at all in that role. I doubt if the daily number of suicide ganks even have any impact on the EVE markets.
Right now we have an oversupply of some minerals. I think the price should be allowed to crash on those.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |