(Good post)

Rather than compare the average high-sec miner to deer, which are wily, swift and worthy prey,
I think a more apt comparison would be a bleating sheep.

Except sheep are domesticated and can be herded around.

You could get sheep through a null-sec gate.

Why not skip all the hunter BS and say plainly that mining accounts closed before got reactivated..Otherwise I doubt everyone is going to start mining just because there is a smaller chance of blowing up, or that pixels are actually going to have offspring.

Extremely dangerous and evil way of reasoning......but a very interesting read....

Nice post......although it does belong in fiction....

chime in with the proverbial "Nuh uh!" as requested... God the presure to conform these days is overwhelming...

"Nuh uh'!

So now we are deer...hmmm... this might make sense if the deer manufactured the guns and ammo one shot them with for dinner, but that isn't the case... so your predation model is flawed sir.

how about this...

People who make things are called producers, they produce goods which then are evaluated into a market and economy then then allow the trade and use of said items ... people that come and burn down the place and ransack everything are called barbarians, vandals, etc.. they produce nothing and yet cause a great deal of damage to the existing balance of market flow and trade.

Your problem with the progression has been your own success at being such efficient pains in the ass to the producers that finally CCP decided enough was enough and make it not longer a broken lulz function and made it risk v. reward... the value of KMs has now gone up... good thing people that want the high marks should have to be good, and have major skilled kills, not warp to belt lock barge hit F1... KM... repeat.

Which part is fiction?

(Good post)

Rather than compare the average high-sec miner to deer, which are wily, swift and worthy prey,
I think a more apt comparison would be a bleating sheep.

And while we're at it, let's not compare these hi sec gankers to predators, which makes them seem as aggressive and bold. I think a more apt comparison would be monkey thieves.

Drones stopped pooing.
Less minerals from rat droppings.
Mining is still boring.
Mineral prices aren't going to tank.

And my Skiff goes ~700m/s.

Nice post, But try replacing 'Deer' with say 'Passenger Pigeon' and the flaws in your argument will become clear.

In the real world your argument, look at fishermen, is oft used to justify over exploitation.

Nah that's people who make a living ninja looting if we're being honest about it.

Predator doesn't imply any sort of honor or elegance. It just means you destroy gatherers for their carcasses.

EDIT: I really meant ninja looting. My bad.

I'm glad you brought this up, because I have a very valid counterpoint or two.

First of all, deer are also producers. They produce fertilizer as well as mineral supplements in the form of antlers for squirrels and other small animals to gnaw on for a boost. They also facilitate the survival of other species which use them for cues, such as wild turkeys. They don't just stand around inertly, and they're not stupid. And it's not an insult to be a gatherer.

Left unchecked, it is a fact that prices will continue to plummet as more and more people take the path of least resistance. This is not a hypothesis, this is statistical fact. A prior poster posited that pixels do not propagate, but they do. When new players sign up and see easy low-risk ISk in low-training requirement mining, what do you think they might do?

As a part-time ganker I helped discourage the trend of loners trying to make it on their own. I didn't do much damage per se, but I contributed to keeping reward values high for the miners who managed to succeed.

Can you see these points or not?

Six billion people don't play Eve. The triceratops is extinct. Stuff happens.

Over simplistic clap-trap... if that where the case... I guess all of eve is fertilizer... or is it just your argument perhaps?

The point is this:
1. Gankers had overly cheap ships due to excess of minerals not from ore... a thing which made no since and which was changed, and now the proliferation is the change to mining due to a healthy demand for the supply... there is isk in it again, and so people that produce and want to work for the reward are working for the reward.

2. Your system of economy "lulz-ganking" was SO broken it required a bail-out from the Goons to keep it going, when that failed created a game breaking issue of no mining, no reprocessing, no making, hyper-inflation of everything, and universe market destuction...

...something like the barbarians turning what was once the roman empire and pax roma into one large farm yard dotted with ruins... CCP basically saw the end results and decided to make it more balanced... we still mine unarmed, with drones as the only possible defence in ships that are lulz in combat every day all over EVE... and your saying it's not fair to the people with throw away ships with hoards of guns and such on them that can simply blow up a miner with not much issue... is just well absurd.

If you want to gank, make a corporation, file a war dec on mining corps and go hunting... what's the issue? then you don't even have to deal with CONCORD... completely bi-passed... or is the though that the same ganked "deer" might re-ship and actually give you some risk in game too much for you?

Sir, if you want to simply lulz-gamer... EVE isn't your game... a REAL suicide ganker would drop a few plex, ship up, build three alts, and go out and gank... what you are complaining about is a sub-sidized gank... you don't want the bill after you have been a gultten at the table... well no more free lunch... you have to pay for them KMs just like real PvPers do...

More players are mining because they are less likely to get blown up and mine just as much as they used to.

Until prices respond unfavorably, they'd be fools not to, given the platforms they've now got at their disposal.

You can always gank them, just use more ships and guns to do it.

Natural selection was at work:
Miners were getting better at their trade, learning to tank, cooperating and adapting to ganking tactics.
Stupid sheep were dying off.

But then CCP decided to dump a huge truckload of 'stupid miner food' into the playpen.
And now they are multiplying, and getting dumber.
Good job CCP way to reward bad play.

I make so much ISK i didn't need the Goons' money, bless their souls for offering it.

For that matter I didn't need to PLEX up either. I guess that's the point you fail to realize.

I ganked in SMARTBOMB BATTLESHIPS.

Do you get me now?

Nope it sounds then like you have neither a sound argument or a sound reason to even post... so it must simply be a troll post then of complaint about a lack of cheap KB padding...

I would be more impressed if you out fitted an exhumer wit T2 and factional stuff and went out looking to take on a smart-bombing BS, that sir would impress me... short of that... I feel you post is full of weak-sauce.

Does ganking a miner even need a reason? Does it even need to be justified?

If it's fun, then just say it is fun and have done with it.

Well it used to be rather good money but now that the isk is gone there no point in going after the badly tanked miners which is why we now have fleets of untanked bot barges in lonetrek. And as everyone knows, mass botting only leads to bad prices on the markets.

Most of what occurs in Eve is self-levelling.

Minerals get cheaper, ganking (or any PvP for that matter) gets cheaper, more of it happens and prices go back up. A beautiful thing imho.

I really think we worry to much about trying to inject regulation or whines about game play styles to get things changed when in reality, they'll change themselves given enough time.

And if the prices go low enough miners will either have to accept it or get off their fatasses and do something about it. (reporting, ganking whatever)

Most of what occurs in Eve is self-levelling.

Minerals get cheaper, ganking (or any PvP for that matter) gets cheaper, more of it happens and prices go back up. A beautiful thing imho.

I really think we worry to much about trying to inject regulation or whines about game play styles to get things changed when in reality, they'll change themselves given enough time.

I can see your the kind of person that thinks something like arson isn't a crime it's just lulz fun.. until it happens to you as the victim of it... then it's all

Arson[1] is the crime of intentionally and maliciously setting fire to buildings, wildland areas,[2] cars[3][4] or other property with the intent to cause damage.

Arson has four elements.

The elements are:
1.The malicious
2.burning
3.of the dwelling
4.of another

The malicious GÇô for purposes of common law arson "malicious" means action creating a great risk of a burning. It is not required that the defendant acted intentionally or willfully for the purpose of burning a dwelling.

burning GÇô at common law charring to any part of dwelling was sufficient to satisfy this element. No significant amount of damage to the dwelling was required. On the other hand mere discoloration from smoke was insufficient. Actual damage to the material from which the structure was built is required.[6] Damage to surface coverings such as carpets and wallpaper is insufficient.[6] Arson was not limited to the burning of wooden structures. Any injury or damage to the structure caused by exposure to heat or flame is sufficient.

of the dwelling GÇô dwelling means a place of residence. The destruction of an unoccupied building was not considered as arson, "[s]ince arson protected habitation, the burning of an unoccupied house did not constitute arson." At common law a structure did not become a residence until the first occupants had moved in and ceased to be a dwelling if the occupants abandoned the premises with no intention of resuming their residency.[7] Dwelling includes structures and outbuildings within the curtilage.[8] Dwellings were not limited to houses. A barn could be the subject of arson if it was occupied as a dwelling.

of another GÇô burning one's own dwelling does not constitute common law arson. However, for purposes of common law arson possession or occupancy rather than title determines whose dwelling the structure is.[8] Thus a tenant who sets fire to his rented house would not be guilty of common law arson,[8] while the landlord who set fire to a rented dwelling house would be guilty.

Furthermore, "[t]he burning of one's own dwelling to collect insurance did not constitute common law arson. It was generally assumed in early England that one had the legal right to destroy his own property in any manner he chose."[9]

Now try to build a justification for this activity as "lulz-fun' and that will pass a court of law and you might have a justifiable reason for it not being treated as such in EVE... basically your the "devil's night" group that gives everyone a pain in the butt feeling even other pvp'ers which scorn you activities as a bastardization of there legitimate kill records and activities on the boards...

My beef is really the KB scores...to many people use this as a quick fix to pad the boards... it was a pain in the ass and cluttered up the servers, was basically exploited and finally ended in a way that improved the game... everyone, minus the gankers has seen this as a plus... you had your day in the sun... now try another career...

why don't the 6k of you could create destroyer alts and just kill every thing in high sec. little schools of piranhas devouring the miners. aren't you guys the super villains in this particular universe? i'm terribly disappointed that you're down to forum posts. entertain me mr. player content!

Problem here is miners whined and CCP changed the game for them. They didn't adapt or change tactics themselves. Thanks to this short sightedness miners are going to suffer a loss of income, just when things were looking good.

Why is it The Rest of Us have to adapt and change while miners don't? Miners whined that us mission runners were 'mining' more minerals with a battleship and ammo, so ( usually crap ) loot drops were nerfed. Supposedly all these reprocessed minerals being sold cheap were driving their profits down. How about they adapt and put up buy orders in all the high population mission hubs and buy those cheap minerals? It's not hard, trust me.

Why is it The Rest of Us have to adapt and change while miners don't? Miners whined that us mission runners were 'mining' more minerals with a battleship and ammo, so ( usually crap ) loot drops were nerfed. Supposedly all these reprocessed minerals being sold cheap were driving their profits down. How about they adapt and put up buy orders in all the high population mission hubs and buy those cheap minerals? It's not hard, trust me.

I suppose in CCP's grand image of EVE, they didn't want such a large portion of minerals coming from not-mining.

If I'm 'mining' more minerals with a BS and cruise missiles than a miner with a barge/exhumer and strip miners - they should probably repackage that mining ship , put it on the market and try a different profession. And I'll point out to them mission running usually requires more effort than moving ore every minute or so and then alt-tabbing back to YouTube.

And yes ... I have mined before. I'd rather claw my eyes out than stare at a mining laser.

If I'm 'mining' more minerals with a BS and cruise missiles than a miner with a barge/exhumer and strip miners - they should probably repackage that mining ship , put it on the market and try a different profession. And I'll point out to them mission running usually requires more effort than moving ore every minute or so and then alt-tabbing back to YouTube.

And yes ... I have mined before. I'd rather claw my eyes out than stare at a mining laser.

I'm a casual miner. I mine when I'm running missions on an alt or moving goods around. Mining in high sec is far too boring to do full time. I've also done some low sec mining. It was a lot of fun, but a total failure in the risk vs reward column. The latest mining buffs where a god send to my play style.

However high sec mining really doesn't make sense. The large empires own everything in high sec and yet they allow anyone to grab free floating resources without taxes or limits? That's a dumb system. Here's a good change for high sec mining:
Set a daily maxim that you are allowed to mine. Go over it and the faction police show you a good time.

This lets the lowbies and the casuals to mine enough to keep them happy and forces professorial miners into low sec or out of mining altogether. Oh and buff low sec mining while you're at it. I'd love to have a reason to mine and do industry in low sec.

Let me start by stating that this is all the opinion of a part-time lulz-ganker based on observation of the past year's "progress" in the development of both Eve Online's community, as well as the game itself. Since I am not a miner, no doubt many will chime in with the proverbial "Nuh uh!" They are free to do so, of course, but I feel this reaction will be at the cost of their own enjoyment of Eve Online at a minimum, and possibly even their own enlightenment.

Let's start with my premise: Every system responds to pressure. This is true in video games, nature, even in your pressure cooker. Deer herds are a good example of systems responding to various pressures. Deer have finite natural resources with which to survive, in much the same way that Eve Online has finite resources. Some may say the resources are infinite, but that is only taken over an eternity. Eve's resources are clearly finite, even if renewable. The same can be said of the acorns and plant material upon which deer feed.

Let's look more closely at what happens to deer populations in response to certain pressures, shall we?

When a population of deer is actively hunted (be it by man or by beast), the overall health and happiness of the herd actually improves. This seems counter-intuitive! Surely some hunter out shooting deer for lulz (or food, doesn't matter) can't benefit the overall well-being of the herd...but he does. The reason is obvious: Killing one deer has negligible impact on the demand placed on resources required by the herd, but those resources are shared between fewer deer. This means the population is happier, save for the trophy-mounted (or stew-kettle-consigned) victim.

However, when a population of deer is allowed to range free from predation, they multiply faster. This has little change on the overall demand for natural resources, but the resources available for each individual are less. This means that the herd's health suffers when they are not hunted; both from malnutrition and from disease. This is because deer have no mechanism for controlling the size of their own herd. All they do is react to the environment around them and try to survive as well as possible.

Now let's look at how this counterintuitive fact might apply to Eve.

When a population of miners is actively hunted (be it by null-sec pilots, low-sec pirates, or high-sec mercenaries), the overall wealth and happiness of the mining community actually improves. This is because the demand for ships continues to be mostly unaffected by the minute loss of one pilot. But with that pilot's loss of resolve, more ore is available for less people to mine. This means miners are happier, save for the killboard-pasted victim.

However, when a population of miners is allowed to mine free from ganks, they multiply faster. This has little change on the overall demand for ships and modules, but the resources available for each miner are less. Consequently, miners make less ISK for the same effort. This is because miners as a group refuse to use the mechanism designed for controlling the size of their, erm, herd. All they do is react to the environment around them with cries of, "Nef gankers!" and, "Buff mining!"

The similarities between these two systems are actually quite astonishing.

It is my belief that this is an example of the "negative pressure" at work in any system involving gatherers and predators. It appears to an "outsider" (or to those who don't or won't think critically) that hunting/ganking is a "big deal" but in fact the overabundance of gatherers exerts far more pressure on the system than the hunters/gankers do. This creates a system where the results are predictably counterintuitive: In order to help the gatherers be happier as a group, it is absolutely necessary to lower their overall threshold for individual survival. In game terms, this would mean that the only way to actually "BUFF MINING!" is to nerf it. Conversely, the only way to nerf mining is to buff it.

We will see in the next year if this is an accurate appraisal of the current situation. I sincerely hope that tritanium doesn't fall below 3 ISK like I think it will. Further, I hope that ice doesn't become so worthless that managing a network of a few dozen large POS is trivial. I can potentially see the day coming when the overall health of Eve ssuffers if CCP doesn't stop pandering to our gatherer-class. In terms of long-term health of the system, it may be much more viable to support the culling of that population routinely rather than capitulate to their ill-conceived cries about "fairness" in a video game where they deliberately choose to be the deer and complain that the wolves' teeth and claws are too sharp and penetrate their dainty skin (hulls!?!) too easily.

TL;DR: I'm pretty sure that there's only one way to keep miners happy for an extended period of time in Eve. Counter-intuitively, that is to nerf mining rather than buff it.

Let me start by stating that this is all the opinion of a part-time lulz-ganker based on observation of the past year's "progress" in the development of both Eve Online's community, as well as the game itself. Since I am not a miner, no doubt many will chime in with the proverbial "Nuh uh!" They are free to do so, of course, but I feel this reaction will be at the cost of their own enjoyment of Eve Online at a minimum, and possibly even their own enlightenment.

Let's start with my premise: Every system responds to pressure. This is true in video games, nature, even in your pressure cooker. Deer herds are a good example of systems responding to various pressures. Deer have finite natural resources with which to survive, in much the same way that Eve Online has finite resources. Some may say the resources are infinite, but that is only taken over an eternity. Eve's resources are clearly finite, even if renewable. The same can be said of the acorns and plant material upon which deer feed.

Let's look more closely at what happens to deer populations in response to certain pressures, shall we?

When a population of deer is actively hunted (be it by man or by beast), the overall health and happiness of the herd actually improves. This seems counter-intuitive! Surely some hunter out shooting deer for lulz (or food, doesn't matter) can't benefit the overall well-being of the herd...but he does. The reason is obvious: Killing one deer has negligible impact on the demand placed on resources required by the herd, but those resources are shared between fewer deer. This means the population is happier, save for the trophy-mounted (or stew-kettle-consigned) victim.

However, when a population of deer is allowed to range free from predation, they multiply faster. This has little change on the overall demand for natural resources, but the resources available for each individual are less. This means that the herd's health suffers when they are not hunted; both from malnutrition and from disease. This is because deer have no mechanism for controlling the size of their own herd. All they do is react to the environment around them and try to survive as well as possible.

Now let's look at how this counterintuitive fact might apply to Eve.

When a population of miners is actively hunted (be it by null-sec pilots, low-sec pirates, or high-sec mercenaries), the overall wealth and happiness of the mining community actually improves. This is because the demand for ships continues to be mostly unaffected by the minute loss of one pilot. But with that pilot's loss of resolve, more ore is available for less people to mine. This means miners are happier, save for the killboard-pasted victim.

However, when a population of miners is allowed to mine free from ganks, they multiply faster. This has little change on the overall demand for ships and modules, but the resources available for each miner are less. Consequently, miners make less ISK for the same effort. This is because miners as a group refuse to use the mechanism designed for controlling the size of their, erm, herd. All they do is react to the environment around them with cries of, "Nef gankers!" and, "Buff mining!"

The similarities between these two systems are actually quite astonishing.

It is my belief that this is an example of the "negative pressure" at work in any system involving gatherers and predators. It appears to an "outsider" (or to those who don't or won't think critically) that hunting/ganking is a "big deal" but in fact the overabundance of gatherers exerts far more pressure on the system than the hunters/gankers do. This creates a system where the results are predictably counterintuitive: In order to help the gatherers be happier as a group, it is absolutely necessary to lower their overall threshold for individual survival. In game terms, this would mean that the only way to actually "BUFF MINING!" is to nerf it. Conversely, the only way to nerf mining is to buff it.

We will see in the next year if this is an accurate appraisal of the current situation. I sincerely hope that tritanium doesn't fall below 3 ISK like I think it will. Further, I hope that ice doesn't become so worthless that managing a network of a few dozen large POS is trivial. I can potentially see the day coming when the overall health of Eve ssuffers if CCP doesn't stop pandering to our gatherer-class. In terms of long-term health of the system, it may be much more viable to support the culling of that population routinely rather than capitulate to their ill-conceived cries about "fairness" in a video game where they deliberately choose to be the deer and complain that the wolves' teeth and claws are too sharp and penetrate their dainty skin (hulls!?!) too easily.

TL;DR: I'm pretty sure that there's only one way to keep miners happy for an extended period of time in Eve. Counter-intuitively, that is to nerf mining rather than buff it.

Interesting idea, though if the limit is too low, prices in EVE will spin outta control.

First and foremost, this is a game and not a court of law. I'm wondering if the pressures from real-world environments will be mirrored in Eve Online, not whining about not being able to gank anymore, which I most certainly can.

So basically your entire post boils down to morality, which amounts to "I don't like the way you play and I'm glad if this ruins it for you."

Congratulations. You missed the real discussion.

:P For the same token any system that is under pressure, leads to a happier & healthier population.

THEREFORE:
Gankers are under pressure, now! There are less miners dying therefore gankers must be happy.

See the flaw in your argument yet???

You can still gank mining vessels, it just requires the ganker to invest more money into a successful gank.

I like mining. I'd go as far as saying its my main playstyle at the moment.

The thought of logging in to play sickly deer for some coward pvp wannabes is terrible. You gankers are just incapable of seeing this from the other side. You would destroy the game just so you can shoot ships that can't fight back. Pathetic.

Whats pathetic is the fact that for 8 months people such as yourself failed to do anything to protect yourselves dispite "evil gankers" such as myself posting fits and tactics that would make you unviable targets. You made yourselves targets for pirates.

Even now you people fit zero tank but thanks to CCP most are not profitable to kill. Miners whine how boring their job is then nerf the only excitement they have

Mining alts will blot out the sun.

You aren't seeing it from your proverbial side though.

Wolves hunt Deer, the more wolves there are, the less content the wolf pack is. One could argue that less wolves mean happier wolves too. After the hybrid nerf there were simply "too many wolves".

OP, your post makes sense to a degree, but ask a carrier pigeon about over hunting. Oh, wait...

I agree that the OPs analogy is simplistic as it doesn not fully capture the idea of deer as producers.

However, there is something there...something to it.

I never really understood people complaining about 'predation'. Predation can actually help you even if you are a 'prey animal'. If the predators go after the easy prey and you make yourself difficult to kill you won't make as much as you used to because you have to play sub-optimally to avoid predation...but on the whole you are ahead of what you would be because your relative share of the 'harvest' goes up. This means you are better off then you were before predation!

There are ways predation helps that many may have not considered. Keeping on mining as the example, how many times have you heard miners complaining about people selling minerals 'below cost'? The "minerals are free cuz I mined them" mentality? What predation does is hinder these people even if predation is completely random. The more efficient you are the faster you make the isk per hour. If predation was random and averaged (to pull a number out of thin air) to a cost of 5 mill isk per hour then anyone less efficient than 5 mill isk per hour will soon be gone from the world (they are making negative isk so they have to 'die' sometime). The ones making close to 5 mill isk an hour will have lean times and probably give up. This means that the efficient/competent miners do not have to contend with a horde of morons dumping cheap minerals on the market.

I have to go with the OP even if it is a simplistic analogy. Predation DOES help with the 'health' of the prey.

However, you can't have too high a predator to prey ratio. If the predators are too numerous the ecology will collapse. I believe the current predator to prey ratio of mammals is around 5-7%...which means you need 12-20 miners per predator. This means you have to have it hard being a predator in order to keep balance.

I would think that presenting a logical supported view point wouldn't care if it was a game or a court of law... something is either a supported position or not... congrats you missed the entire point of logic.

In the real world your argument, look at fishermen, is oft used to justify over exploitation.

The only thing over-population of deer cause is traffic accidents on the highway.

*snip*

Miner=deer=dumb analogy.

Let me start by stating that this is all the opinion of a part-time lulz-ganker based on observation of the past year's "progress" in the development of both Eve Online's community, as well as the game itself. Since I am not a miner, no doubt many will chime in with the proverbial "Nuh uh!" They are free to do so, of course, but I feel this reaction will be at the cost of their own enjoyment of Eve Online at a minimum, and possibly even their own enlightenment.

Let's start with my premise: Every system responds to pressure. This is true in video games, nature, even in your pressure cooker. Deer herds are a good example of systems responding to various pressures. Deer have finite natural resources with which to survive, in much the same way that Eve Online has finite resources. Some may say the resources are infinite, but that is only taken over an eternity. Eve's resources are clearly finite, even if renewable. The same can be said of the acorns and plant material upon which deer feed.

Let's look more closely at what happens to deer populations in response to certain pressures, shall we?

When a population of deer is actively hunted (be it by man or by beast), the overall health and happiness of the herd actually improves. This seems counter-intuitive! Surely some hunter out shooting deer for lulz (or food, doesn't matter) can't benefit the overall well-being of the herd...but he does. The reason is obvious: Killing one deer has negligible impact on the demand placed on resources required by the herd, but those resources are shared between fewer deer. This means the population is happier, save for the trophy-mounted (or stew-kettle-consigned) victim.

However, when a population of deer is allowed to range free from predation, they multiply faster. This has little change on the overall demand for natural resources, but the resources available for each individual are less. This means that the herd's health suffers when they are not hunted; both from malnutrition and from disease. This is because deer have no mechanism for controlling the size of their own herd. All they do is react to the environment around them and try to survive as well as possible.

Now let's look at how this counterintuitive fact might apply to Eve.

When a population of miners is actively hunted (be it by null-sec pilots, low-sec pirates, or high-sec mercenaries), the overall wealth and happiness of the mining community actually improves. This is because the demand for ships continues to be mostly unaffected by the minute loss of one pilot. But with that pilot's loss of resolve, more ore is available for less people to mine. This means miners are happier, save for the killboard-pasted victim.

However, when a population of miners is allowed to mine free from ganks, they multiply faster. This has little change on the overall demand for ships and modules, but the resources available for each miner are less. Consequently, miners make less ISK for the same effort. This is because miners as a group refuse to use the mechanism designed for controlling the size of their, erm, herd. All they do is react to the environment around them with cries of, "Nef gankers!" and, "Buff mining!"

The similarities between these two systems are actually quite astonishing.

It is my belief that this is an example of the "negative pressure" at work in any system involving gatherers and predators. It appears to an "outsider" (or to those who don't or won't think critically) that hunting/ganking is a "big deal" but in fact the overabundance of gatherers exerts far more pressure on the system than the hunters/gankers do. This creates a system where the results are predictably counterintuitive: In order to help the gatherers be happier as a group, it is absolutely necessary to lower their overall threshold for individual survival. In game terms, this would mean that the only way to actually "BUFF MINING!" is to nerf it. Conversely, the only way to nerf mining is to buff it.

We will see in the next year if this is an accurate appraisal of the current situation. I sincerely hope that tritanium doesn't fall below 3 ISK like I think it will. Further, I hope that ice doesn't become so worthless that managing a network of a few dozen large POS is trivial. I can potentially see the day coming when the overall health of Eve ssuffers if CCP doesn't stop pandering to our gatherer-class. In terms of long-term health of the system, it may be much more viable to support the culling of that population routinely rather than capitulate to their ill-conceived cries about "fairness" in a video game where they deliberately choose to be the deer and complain that the wolves' teeth and claws are too sharp and penetrate their dainty skin (hulls!?!) too easily.

TL;DR: I'm pretty sure that there's only one way to keep miners happy for an extended period of time in Eve. Counter-intuitively, that is to nerf mining rather than buff it.

To the op:

You high-seccers are not doing your job very well. Many systems have been striped of assets recently.
So I went about searching for who is doing it. I found several roaming bands of Goons usually 300 to a titan.
They go into a system about 20000 strong and clear out all of the infracstructure in short order. Then like a locust move on to the next one.
Note we are not talking about buffed T2's or even faction ships, but the cheap T1 BS's. And they are still max kill fit. You miners are just a lazy bunch that are to lazy to go look for the Goons and hunt them down.

As far as your deer hunting story goes. You guys are drinking too much beer on the job then you go out to your favorite tree stand and wait for the prey. Guess what those Goons that you like to hunt have all moved on and you are still sitting in the same damned tree. Get off your ass and go get them.

I fixed it for ya.

Ask a Wall Street Tycoon about runaway dellation...oh wait.

Do you really think miners can be ganked to extinction?

You really give your fellow [edit: mining] capsuleers a lot of credit!

I didn't read the thread yet but I'm willing to wager half of the thread is npc alt miners whining and posting the same terrible arguments over and over again.

So, much like the gankers then?

[X] Member of NPC corp,
[X] Terrible at posting,
[X] Thinks their opinion matters.

Maybe CCP will patch posting so you miners won't have so much trouble forming intelligent arguments and corroborating them.

You know I'd think CCP would want miners being ganked as it makes the mining bot problem less significant, it helps to keep the profession's income up, it helps the economy, and it provides amusement to people who patiently must wait a year or two for CCP to fix the part of the game they live in. I'm to lazy to look up the quote for moronic npc alts but I remember somewhere a CCP guy saying that it was currently too difficult to differentiate between an actual miner and a bot so I'll leave this screenshot here as an example of the state of this problem.

http://imgur.com/DbL17

For those that have trouble understanding, look at what is typed and look at what the search box suggests, I'm surprised it is so high in the suggestions.

Revert mining ship EHP buffs (except for the procuror and skiff).

I like mining. I'd go as far as saying its my main playstyle at the moment.

The thought of logging in to play sickly deer for some coward pvp wannabes is terrible. You gankers are just incapable of seeing this from the other side. You would destroy the game just so you can shoot ships that can't fight back. Pathetic.

I like mining, and I liked mining even more when cowards like you weren't mining. Suicide ganking of mining barges is probably the lowest form of PvP activity in the game, but mining is the lowest form of PvE activity in the game so they're a perfect match.

If you wouldn't even do a little bit of research to understand what gankers are doing and what their limits were, you don't belong in space flying a mining barge or exhumer. The simple facts of the matter were that a single catalyst would top out at about 10k damage. They made their profit from salvage and the very expensive T2 mining and ice harvesting equipment that many people were using to maximise their yield. All you needed to do was fit some tank at the expense of yield. Even 12k EHP would have been enough since most gankers were solo operators.

In addition, you can watch the belts, see who the gankers are, set their standings low so you see the orange or red indicator on their name in local, and make sure you keep your eyes open for their presence. But apparently even this tiny amount of effort was too much for some people: you bad miners were so fixated on maximum yield that you wouldn't take simple precautions because fitting a tank would cost you too much yield. Paying attention to the game every now and then would cost you more time and reduce your semi-AFK mining ISK/keyboard-hour ratio. So instead you unsubscribed and stated that your reason for unsubscribing was suicide ganking.

CCP destroyed my game to win back your subscription. The result is a situation much worse than suicide ganking ever was.

You want to know why CCP buffed mining barges?

For the lulz my friend, for the lulz.

And you sound like you have no clue at all that the hulks are still flying at max yield around eve. Makes me wonder if you ever were a ganker. Maybe only a fair weather ganker. Just like every one else in eve you only look in the 4 or 5 systems around you and say all of eve is like this because it is so where I live. Get out of your tree stand and open your eyes.

Wait lets whine to CCP maybe they will fix it so hulks fly around in my system again so I can gank them.
I have none zero sympathy for you.

There were too many gankers is all. It was unbalanced. So it got nerfed like ALWAYS happens when things get unbalanced. Effective gankers have already moved on to freighters. If that gets out of control, it will get nerfed too. You are living in the past, move on already.

My whine detector is going off this morning. Bunch of gankers whining. Go play WoW, or at least some Counter Strike.

Let me start by stating that this is all the opinion of a part-time lulz-ganker based on observation of the past year's "progress" in the development of both Eve Online's community, as well as the game itself. Since I am not a miner, no doubt many will chime in with the proverbial "Nuh uh!" They are free to do so, of course, but I feel this reaction will be at the cost of their own enjoyment of Eve Online at a minimum, and possibly even their own enlightenment.

Let's start with my premise: Every system responds to pressure. This is true in video games, nature, even in your pressure cooker. Deer herds are a good example of systems responding to various pressures. Deer have finite natural resources with which to survive, in much the same way that Eve Online has finite resources. Some may say the resources are infinite, but that is only taken over an eternity. Eve's resources are clearly finite, even if renewable. The same can be said of the acorns and plant material upon which deer feed.

Let's look more closely at what happens to deer populations in response to certain pressures, shall we?

When a population of deer is actively hunted (be it by man or by beast), the overall health and happiness of the herd actually improves. This seems counter-intuitive! Surely some hunter out shooting deer for lulz (or food, doesn't matter) can't benefit the overall well-being of the herd...but he does. The reason is obvious: Killing one deer has negligible impact on the demand placed on resources required by the herd, but those resources are shared between fewer deer. This means the population is happier, save for the trophy-mounted (or stew-kettle-consigned) victim.

However, when a population of deer is allowed to range free from predation, they multiply faster. This has little change on the overall demand for natural resources, but the resources available for each individual are less. This means that the herd's health suffers when they are not hunted; both from malnutrition and from disease. This is because deer have no mechanism for controlling the size of their own herd. All they do is react to the environment around them and try to survive as well as possible.

Now let's look at how this counterintuitive fact might apply to Eve.

When a population of miners is actively hunted (be it by null-sec pilots, low-sec pirates, or high-sec mercenaries), the overall wealth and happiness of the mining community actually improves. This is because the demand for ships continues to be mostly unaffected by the minute loss of one pilot. But with that pilot's loss of resolve, more ore is available for less people to mine. This means miners are happier, save for the killboard-pasted victim.

However, when a population of miners is allowed to mine free from ganks, they multiply faster. This has little change on the overall demand for ships and modules, but the resources available for each miner are less. Consequently, miners make less ISK for the same effort. This is because miners as a group refuse to use the mechanism designed for controlling the size of their, erm, herd. All they do is react to the environment around them with cries of, "Nef gankers!" and, "Buff mining!"

The similarities between these two systems are actually quite astonishing.

It is my belief that this is an example of the "negative pressure" at work in any system involving gatherers and predators. It appears to an "outsider" (or to those who don't or won't think critically) that hunting/ganking is a "big deal" but in fact the overabundance of gatherers exerts far more pressure on the system than the hunters/gankers do. This creates a system where the results are predictably counterintuitive: In order to help the gatherers be happier as a group, it is absolutely necessary to lower their overall threshold for individual survival. In game terms, this would mean that the only way to actually "BUFF MINING!" is to nerf it. Conversely, the only way to nerf mining is to buff it.

We will see in the next year if this is an accurate appraisal of the current situation. I sincerely hope that tritanium doesn't fall below 3 ISK like I think it will. Further, I hope that ice doesn't become so worthless that managing a network of a few dozen large POS is trivial. I can potentially see the day coming when the overall health of Eve ssuffers if CCP doesn't stop pandering to our gatherer-class. In terms of long-term health of the system, it may be much more viable to support the culling of that population routinely rather than capitulate to their ill-conceived cries about "fairness" in a video game where they deliberately choose to be the deer and complain that the wolves' teeth and claws are too sharp and penetrate their dainty skin (hulls!?!) too easily.

TL;DR: I'm pretty sure that there's only one way to keep miners happy for an extended period of time in Eve. Counter-intuitively, that is to nerf mining rather than buff it.

So many miners in this thread gloating that the gankers can no longer kill them

I hope they come back to gloat in a few months when they have pushed trit prices through the floor

You know I'd think CCP would want miners being ganked as it makes the mining bot problem less significant, it helps to keep the profession's income up, it helps the economy, and it provides amusement to people who patiently must wait a year or two for CCP to fix the part of the game they live in. I'm to lazy to look up the quote for moronic npc alts but I remember somewhere a CCP guy saying that it was currently too difficult to differentiate between an actual miner and a bot so I'll leave this screenshot here as an example of the state of this problem.

http://imgur.com/DbL17

For those that have trouble understanding, look at what is typed and look at what the search box suggests, I'm surprised it is so high in the suggestions.

Revert mining ship EHP buffs (except for the procuror and skiff).

why don't you and your buddies stop whining and bring out a destroyer fleet? can you seriously not get 5 or 6 goons in destroyers together to do some ganking of miners? can a 6k man alliance not put together 250 destroyer alts? have the goons been neutered by a simple EHP buff? is that all it took to turn you guys into whiny babies? where the **** is your emergent gameplay?

Which part is fiction?

"Eve ratting" had "Eve ratting bot" as the 2nd suggestion. Botting is not a problem isolated to mining and exhumer EHP being what it was didn't stop people from doing it before. Additionally given the evidence of the number of mining bots banned (mining bot forum comments, etc) it would suggest that their detection methods have improved or the comment was inaccurate.

I like mining, and I liked mining even more when cowards like you weren't mining. Suicide ganking of mining barges is probably the lowest form of PvP activity in the game, but mining is the lowest form of PvE activity in the game so they're a perfect match.

If you wouldn't even do a little bit of research to understand what gankers are doing and what their limits were, you don't belong in space flying a mining barge or exhumer. The simple facts of the matter were that a single catalyst would top out at about 10k damage. They made their profit from salvage and the very expensive T2 mining and ice harvesting equipment that many people were using to maximise their yield. All you needed to do was fit some tank at the expense of yield. Even 12k EHP would have been enough since most gankers were solo operators.

In addition, you can watch the belts, see who the gankers are, set their standings low so you see the orange or red indicator on their name in local, and make sure you keep your eyes open for their presence. But apparently even this tiny amount of effort was too much for some people: you bad miners were so fixated on maximum yield that you wouldn't take simple precautions because fitting a tank would cost you too much yield. Paying attention to the game every now and then would cost you more time and reduce your semi-AFK mining ISK/keyboard-hour ratio. So instead you unsubscribed and stated that your reason for unsubscribing was suicide ganking.

CCP destroyed my game to win back your subscription. The result is a situation much worse than suicide ganking ever was.

I don't understand something...
The goons (and that creepy faced baltec guy) keep saying ganking miners was profitable. How was it profitable? did they drop loot?

Sorry for being ignorant...

This loot (strip miners cost a pretty penny), combined with insurance for the lost gank ships would usually make it fairly profitable to gank miners.

Insurance for ships destroyed by concord was removed a while before the recent mining buff. Though I believe potential salvage drops from tech 2 ships, including barges, were buffed before that.

I don't understand something...
The goons (and that creepy faced baltec guy) keep saying ganking miners was profitable. How was it profitable? did they drop loot?

Sorry for being ignorant...

You're implying that killing miners improves the quality of supply of miners to gank. Ha.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

No. I'm not sure you read the OP, but I'm implying that killing miners provides me with less miners to gank, and therefore with less miners sharing a similar burden of demand for their minerals, the less miners will be wealthier than they would have been if gankers hadn't killed off their competitors.

Big difference.

...[snip]
I know all too well that there are costs. Most of them incurred by me.

No insurance for gankers, remember?

Edit: Dr. EyjoG (sp?) also seems to think that conflict (ie, ship destruction) is good for the economy. You can forum search for his posts.

It's a pretty consistent theme of his.

My phrasing on that summation was a bit loose. Rather than say "improves the quality of supply" (suggesting an increase), I should have said "improves the quality of the remaining stock". Your deer population analogy, along with similar analogies (forest fires renew forests... etc.) doesn't quite work.

It was still a good post, though.

Could try finding an industrialist willing to sponsor the ganking of the miners around him/her.

The problem is that you cannot make a profit anymore. They might still be gankable but if there is no money in it then nobody is going to do it. The only threat to high sec miners have more or less been removed.

That's weird, because low-sec piracy and ganking in high-sec were never very profitable activities. I was always told by people who blew me up; and there are lot of them thanks to bad luck and lazyness, that it was all up for the laughs and having fun...

...no?

Isn't the entire ganking economy based on tears, not isk?

Unless, of course, you were busy selling mining ships....

The price of strip mining lasers and crystals recently went through the roof, High enough in fact to make ganking profitable on many barges. So I wonder about your statement. Perhaps the gankers are selling these things...

I usually post in "ganking is good gameplay" threads disagreeing with that notion as a general course. It's gameplay that promotes bullying, and gives an excuse to harass players. I just don't agree that such a thing represents good gameplay. It's that simple.

We only ganked miners because it was profitable. The EHP buff means that macks are no longer profitable to gank so we no longer gank them. This is something miners have never been able to grasp for some reason.

The EHP of the mack also means that the skiff, a ship built for greater protection from ganks, is pointless.

so basically, you're whining that the resource you were farming isn't as profitable as it once was. has it really come to this? i thought you guys were the best and brightest villains in eve. has the idea well been tapped out? with 6k of you, it shouldn't be hard for you to get together a massive noob ship blob. you could do it with trial accounts. even buying fittings for it would be a rounding error in your null sec pilots' wallets.

put your numbers to work. your high sec pve got nerfed. get over it. i'm pretty sure that's what goons tell the rest of us.

so basically, you're whining that the resource you were farming isn't as profitable as it once was. has it really come to this? i thought you guys were the best and brightest villains in eve. has the idea well been tapped out? with 6k of you, it shouldn't be hard for you to get together a massive noob ship blob. you could do it with trial accounts. even buying fittings for it would be a rounding error in your null sec pilots' wallets.

put your numbers to work. your high sec pve got nerfed. get over it. i'm pretty sure that's what goons tell the rest of us.

When a population of deer is actively hunted (be it by man or by beast), the overall health and happiness of the herd actually improves.

so basically, you're whining that the resource you were farming isn't as profitable as it once was. has it really come to this?

i thought you guys were the best and brightest villains in eve.

They are? Hey Baltec: did I miss the memo that you guys were the villains while I was un-subbed or something?

I think the most pressing question is here:
How do you measure happiness of deer ?

And I doubt iterating the same discussion over and over will bring much changes.

I just say:
Hair peace.
Mine peace.

Not that I got any of the first one.

So with that out of the way: I still don't get why gankers are still complaining about the mining buff, the same way I don't get why miners complain about suicide ganking. There are tons of threads in which gankers tell miners to quit whining and tank their barges, in order to adapt to the conditions that are set by the game. And rightly so. In return the gankers must also accept that they have to adapt to the new conditions, by either using bigger and better fit ships, roaming in larger gangs, looking for other targets, or just starting a new pasttime. Eve offers so many fun things to do, but sometimes when you look at the GD-forums it seems like mining and ganking miners are the only activities people care about.

Posted: 2012.09.25 15:11: The EHP of the mack also means that the skiff, a ship built for greater protection from ganks, is pointless.

Posted: 2012.09.26 05:41: Acctually my main complaint is that the skiff is redundent because of the macks tank -snip-

The problem is that the skiff is a pointless ship because the mack is doing its job. Gankers have long adapted to changes, hence our discovery of the gank destroyers but the margin for making a profit on ganking barges was so tight that the buff to the macks tank means it is not possible to kill these ships, even with no tank, and not make a loss.

Some of the barges did need a buff to their base tank but the mack and the hulk were not those ships. Their base tanks were perfectly fine and the hulks still is. The only change that needs to happen is the macks base tanks should be the same as the hulks as that would mean it would be profitable to gank but at the same time perfectly able to defend itself if the miner tanks it. It would also give the skiff the role it is ment to have.

I think I see what this is all about. You really liked your Skiff, didn't you. This ENTIRE Ice Interdiction, Freighter Ganking and even HULKAGEDDON is all because of Skiff!

... You... you... VILLAIN!!

How about we turn that around. There's over a hundred thousand high-sec miners. Why not supply Eve's tritanium needs with rookie ships? Oh what's that you say? They don't want to?

Acctually my main complaint is that the skiff is redundent because of the macks tank. You also under estimate the logistics and cost of such operations. Even our wallets are not endless.

I don't underestimate the logistics of it. Step 1: Create trial account Step2: Log in and create character Step 3: Undock. Step 4: Get into fleet Step 5: Gank en masse. See? That isn't even remotely hard. It's also free.

WTF has happened to you guys? Do you need help? Are you seriously telling me you don't have the wherewithal to put together a stack of 10 destroyers and fittings each in Jita or another hub? Is all that sov space pve income not enough to cover 50 to 75 million isk in expenses per pilot? You are sad sad men. Your entire alliance should feel bad.

I have a stack of 100 catalysts and 100 thrashers with basic gank fits taken from the hulkageddon ganker instructions. If you can get 100 pilots to form up, I'll arm you, since the Goons are so freaking uncoordinated (srsly. I. Cannot. Believe. How. Wimpy. You. Have. Become.). A simple contract exchange for a reasonable price. Then you run a barracuda fleet into an ice system, 10 ships per mack and kill as many as you can before you burn through the stack of ships.

get your balls out of your wife's purse already.

The fatal flaw to your argument is that the resources are not, as you say, finite. At least not to the point that matters.

Too many miners here and all the belts cleared out? Next system. Not every system, not even every high-sec system, is completely mined out, or even close. It is not finite.

How about we turn that around.

There's over a hundred thousand high-sec miners.

Why not supply Eve's tritanium needs with rookie ships?

Oh what's that you say? They don't want to?

That turnaround doesn't really work as we know that noobships aren't anywhere near efficient for the task at hand for miners, but for gankers in numbers does nearly ensure isk profitability which is the problem you identified. A turnaround here would be something along the lines on making strip miners in highsec nerfed to the point a civ miner could outperform them.

I didn't identify it as a problem to be honest. I just asked how miners would like their only adaptation mechanism to be noobships.

Your response made your point of view plainly clear, in spite of your understanding of who said what, though.

I may be wrong in attributing the idea of ganking having decreased due to a lack of profitability as one that you share. If I am though, the miner buff was a non factor as gank profit doesn't matter and this whole thread asks a question that has no point. I don't believe that to be true and I don't think you do either.

I'm not sure what conclusion you came to from my response either, if you could elaborate it would be appreciated. But thinking into the change itself, if we are talking purely making the tools less efficient so noobships are the top miners, people will use noobships and make similar amounts to now due to the catastrophic drop in supply most likely if the fallout didn't kill the game first. Beyond that, if mechanics didn't force it no one would do it. You may as well have used the same comment pre-change about people only being able to use destroyers to mine. It amounts to the same thing.

Your post was pretty revealing on that matter. You shuck the rookie ship like a bad haircut. You basically made Baitec's point. The rookie ship being the only viable option is a terrible, terrible admition of how broken this new system has become.

Actually I agree with him on the point of the Mack obsoleting the Skiff. Probably why the reasoning goes the same way.

Edit: and actualy, no, I didn't discard the rookie ship idea. In my latter post I played it out. But I wanted to point out that while mechanics made one option semi voable if people weren't an issue, the other wasn't viable compared to alternatives, and later even spelled out how if it were, the situation completely changes as while miners fill a real demand, gankers effectively do not. They only create demand.

You're wrong. Neither are viable, given numbers, to their alternatives. In neither case are you "better off with noob ships."

Also, your viewpoint is overly simplistic. Baitec provides you with technetium. Let's see how many Macks get built without that.

[Edit: For that matter, even I help in supplying your technetium.]

Noobships are in a way viable for ganking hardened barges FOR PROFIT as a result of their now higher EHP. They are not in any way viable for miners because of yield, cargo and that same EHP. The situation doesn't translate and if it did (noobships actually being viable miners) it would alter the landscape of the game in such a way that make the current state entirely irrelevant.

Baitec doesn't supply tech by ganking miners and many gankers are not involved in tech supply at all. While his ganking does create demand for the resources both he and the miner gather, he does not, in the act of ganking, provide those resources. Nor does a change in miner ganking alter how he provides the resources he does.

So you are now dissociating the ganker from the act of ganking for the purposes of your argument. I see.

Miners don't actually produce anything either, then, for that matter.

They merely gather it. They may be associated with actual producers, and in rare cases may themselves be producers, but this argument is so stupid I can't even keep it up.

As for your profitability by scale scenario, how many high-sec miners are there? You really don't think they could mine a good amount of trit in noob ships? it would be more profitable for them, according to you, if they suddenly just decided to and so did en-masse, as trit would nearly vanish from the market.

Your arguments are flimsy, your case foiled. Clearly your own statement about what would happen if noob ships were suddenly the top miners (mineral prices would skyrocket) indicate that, in fact, you agree with my original premise:

The only way to buff mining profits is to nerf mining.

The only way to buff mining profits is to nerf mining.

2 things overall:

1. I never disagreed with your premise. Just that particular assertion that miners being confined to noobships is comparable to gankers being confined to the same. Neither is a good state of thinks but one is semi workable but the other, if enforced by game mechanics massively changes things
2. I didn't disassociate a ganker from ganking. I disassociated the act of ganking from the act of defending tech moons. An individual can do both and many do, but there are gankers who don't defend tech moons the same as there are members of tech owning alliances that don't gank. The acts are not mutually inclusive and are functionally independent (though they are economically linked).

To specific arguments:
"So you are now dissociating the ganker from the act of ganking for the purposes of your argument. I see." - No, see 2 above. I'm not sure where you got this from unless you misread something.

"Miners don't actually produce anything either, then, for that matter." - Not sure where you are going with this part or that which immediately follows, so I'll skip it. It may also be addressed by the above.

"As for your profitability by scale scenario, how many high-sec miners are there? You really don't think they could mine a good amount of trit in noob ships?" - No

"it would be more profitable for them, according to you, if they suddenly just decided to and so did en-masse, as trit would nearly vanish from the market." - An items value is determined by both supply and demand. This is a reduction in supply. That you should agree with, correct? But what of demand? If demand stays the same then each of the far fewer units harvested becomes worth more. More for less of the same, which leads into your last statement:

"The only way to buff mining profits is to nerf mining." - First off, as stated above yes. I agree, but in more than the way you seem to have intended. Your way is to make it more dangerous again which reduces competition, vs. the noobship comment which just reduces yield. Both reduce supply and increase the overall value of minerals. Do you disagree with that?

What? As soon as prices rise, more people will do it (regardless of how) and eventually you'll need to make this same claim again.

Some might be instinctively inclined to think the reverse is true then? Answer is no.

Buff mining to the max, let the market prices plummet, less will do it. Prices go up etc. etc.

See where this is going?


For mine, if I want to increase my profit, I need to increase revenue and to increase revenue, I need to increase demand.

Combine the revenue increase with efficiency / reduction in costs (doing the same job for less) is where I get to push, I win.

The entire (RL) economy is based around doing same for less WHILE you increase demand.

Demand increase options:
More ship losses.
More subs.
Higher requirements to build.

Anyone think of anymore?

I don't disagree with that. They are functionally the same thing. Both represent the predicted effects of negative pressure on mining profits.

So for profitability, it would be best if all miners agreed to mine in noob ships. Or if miners shot each other to strip down the share of demand garnered by other miners. Or if they got ganked occasionally because it was profitable to do on a reasonable scale.

But that doesn't happen. People do laundry while their Mack hoovers up ice and (to a slightly lesser extent) trit while they are nominally safe from all but the most zealous gank attempts...or by your estimation the most desperate. Because regardless of how you view it, resorting to noobships for ganking is desperate.

I never disagreed with this, but if we're talking viability vs current alternatives, which the argument seemed to be in response to a series of comments about cost of ganking post buff, the noobship one loosely fit the term (or at least came a lot closer to it). Miners with noobships under the same mechanics did not. That was the extent of my prior post.

What came after was a series of arguments I didn't think related but I responded anyways. I'll accept some fault for potentially misscommunicating my responses, but I'm not sure how Baitec and his involvement with tech moons became got into the discussion about or how you interpreted my posts.

your high sec pve got nerfed. get over it. i'm pretty sure that's what goons tell the rest of us.

What? As soon as prices rise, more people will do it (regardless of how) and eventually you'll need to make this same claim again.

Buff mining to the max, let the market prices plummet, less will do it. Prices go up etc. etc.

See where this is going?

Prices did rise. A handful more people got into mining, but not enough to bring prices down. The number of people mining was balanced by the perceived risk.



Wrong. Market prices plummet, the miners that are doing it will keep doing it because it's an easy activity that they can now safely AFK. Prices will not go up: that is a fiction brought on by a misunderstanding of basic economic theory of supply and demand.

Assuming a strong demand: As supply rises, prices will settle to a new lower level. As supply diminishes, prices will settle to a new higher level. As prices drop, producers will simply make less profit. Producers will drop out of the market when their profit reaches zero. Now tell me what are the costs for a miner? It doesn't cost anything to mine ore with T1 mining lasers or strip miners. It doesn't cost anything to refine that ore into minerals. There are costs associated with selling, but they are proportional to the sale price, so irrelevant to the issue.



Yes, prices will continue to fall until mining becomes unprofitable for the time invested. At that point, prices will stabilise at the level which there are still miners mining.

On one hand, I can see the miners leaving the game due to their income dropping in comparison to the prices of PLEX rising. But something tells me it's not miners that are the major purchasers of PLEX.

Wrong. Market prices plummet, the miners that are doing it will keep doing it because it's an easy activity that they can now safely AFK. Prices will not go up: that is a fiction brought on by a misunderstanding of basic economic theory of supply and demand.

Increased efficiences - to gather/produce - increases margin.

Please don't apply the "basic economic theory" as an argument. Please.

In RL, the benchmark everyone tries to use, we have an ever-increasing population and no-one goes about blowing up oil-tankers to keep the prices high.

The world economy and population - despite that it should mean serious supply/demand issues - has actually seen prices drop for most of our stuff because of effiencies.

That is just some of the most obvious differences when people try to equate RL economic theory into a VR environment.

But if we must equate.

Increased demand - for your product - increases revenue.
Increased efficiences - to gather/produce - increases margin.

The margin is the bit miners chase and is distinctly seperate from supply/demand (albeit Eve "supply/demand" is essentially very static).

..stuff..

Mate. For all the faffing about on this. In RL we do not go around blowing up oil-tankers or oil-rigs to increase prices. Period.

This isn't RL.

Its no coincidence that ice mining sucked for years untill the two ice interdictions hit. We effectivly wiped out the vast bulk of miners who were either bots or very bad at it. Coupled with market panic we brought about a three fold increase in profits for miners. Then the barge buff happened and the ganking stopped. The result?

A collapse of the ice prices and the spawning of large bot fleets and porly tanked scrubs flooding the market again. Turns out, ganking is a good thing for miners.

Funny how it's "not RL" when you justify the ganks but you use RL economic theory to do so.

And my point is made exaclty. The change in prices was temporary. Period.

BUT, and this is my point, the anger/anghst/whine whatever you want to call it over the interdiction bought about an EXTERNAL force to circumvent it.

Why? Because the impact to the game and the players (in this, a VR world) was seriously causing a problem. CCP saw it for what it was and "fixed it".

We cannot call "God" in RL when things go bad and to be perfectly honest CCP played "God" to fix the problem. Whether I or you or anyone else agrees is irrelevant.

>> CCP's RL economic reality required a fix. And so it came to be.

Bring back manic ganking again and it'll simply happen again.

I stand by all this talk about gank, not gank to manipulate prices is purely faffing.

You have to come up with another way.

Not blind hatred, sure ganking a freighter full of doodoo is one thing but to blanket target miners because as we all know every single mining barge is a bot is stupidity, there's this obsession with hating miners its the reason CCP had to intervene and buff the ships why is it we should all fly around a$$ grabbing each other all the time around every corner is beyond me, i mean if blowing up everything in sight is all that you want there's 0.0 and dull sec, low sec, WH, FW, all the a$$ grabbing you want empire is only a small part of eve...WTF more do you want.

You do realise that if you fit a tank you are more or less safe right?

You do realise that if you fit a tank you are more or less safe right?

Not this old argument again. sigh...

I don't recall CCP sending out an email to remind the miners of this point.

I don't recall the email where CCP told all the miners to HTFU.

I do recall it causing a LOT of anger and it DID cause unsubs (that's why CCP reacted - it's the ONLY reason they would.

I do recall your whingy/whiney/moan that you're doing the miners a favour.

Oh wait. You're STILL doing it.....

And you reckon the MINERS haven't learned anything. Sheesh Baltec. Just sheesh!

-snip-
BUT, and this is my point, the anger/anghst/whine whatever you want to call it over the interdiction bought about an EXTERNAL force to circumvent it.

Why? Because the impact to the game and the players (in this, a VR world) was seriously causing a problem. CCP saw it for what it was and "fixed it".

We cannot call "God" in RL when things go bad and to be perfectly honest CCP played "God" to fix the problem. Whether I or you or anyone else agrees is irrelevant.
-snip-

the usual fluff about how good he is....

Just like CCP 'fixed' mission drops because miners ( who obviously sucked at mining ) QQ'd that mission runners were getting too many minerals from mission drops. One person boo-hoo'd about how unfair it was after they had trained up all those skills for mining ( as opposed to the racial BS, weapon and defense systems a mission runner trains. I have both - mining was 'easy'... ).

Just how many times does CCP have to come riding in to play White Knight for the mining 'community' who refuses to play smart and adapt?

Just like CCP 'fixed' mission drops because miners ( who obviously sucked at mining ) QQ'd that mission runners were getting too many minerals from mission drops. One person boo-hoo'd about how unfair it was after they had trained up all those skills for mining ( as opposed to the racial BS, weapon and defense systems a mission runner trains. I have both - mining was 'easy'... ).

Just how many times does CCP have to come riding in to play White Knight for the mining 'community' who refuses to play smart and adapt?

How does a miner "adapt" to drone alloys and reprocessed loot from another profession?

How does a miner "adapt" to drone alloys and reprocessed loot from another profession?

But I thought the resources were infinite. What difference does where they come from make?

You don't think an increase in the mining population will look an awful lot like the drone regions' contribution did?

I guess time will tell. But I think initial indications are "It probably will."

Deal with it.

I'm completely confused why non-miners and presumably non-industrialists are bothered about ore prices being too low.

Doesn't that actually make their gameplay easier?

Why would anyone ASK for ways to make stuff more expensive? It defies logic.

So let me get this right. As a miner, you think it is better for say, trit prices to go from 6-7isk/unit to 3isk/unit?

Or how about the 1.70 or so wasn't it that it cratered to back around '08-'09 time frame?

I don't suppose it has occurred to anybody that all the ganking in recent months, long forum blogs about miners and the willful destruction of their ships, and all that other stuff actually helped bring attention to the issue, and raised the average miners bile enough for them to bother coming here and posting how they felt.

That last bit is the important part btw.

Aside from that, I never read the OP, but I do have to say this.

Miners > Production and Manufacturing > Ships and modules > Pilots in Space

This is good for miners how?

I wasn't inferring it was *good* for the miners, just pointing out how low it has gotten in the past. I was still mining at that time and felt that pain ( slightly ). IIRC CCP even had Dr. Enjo burning some midnight oil over that phase.

So you're basically admitting that when tritanium was at its lowest you were among those mining zealots contributing to its awful low price by heaping stock on the market.

Good job! Clearly you are the voice of happy miners everywhere!

This is not ironic.

HAHAHA! You assume quite a bit. You have heard about that word 'assume', haven't you? I haven't mined for my own reasons since around '09 ( I will admit mining for a corp one 'Toon was in because the corp needed it ). And whatever quantity of Trit/etc I might have had when the price was low got tossed in a hanger and sat for a while. In theory I may still have some of those minerals in the pile someplace. But: my time and effort was worth more than what the market was offering.

So let me get this right. As a miner, you think it is better for say, trit prices to go from 6-7isk/unit to 3isk/unit?