He says that supply of materials has gone up after removal of meta 0 loot and drone stuff.

No. He said GÇ£Lower supply with consistent demand should yield higher prices in the future. Which is what we were seeing for a while, predictibly.GÇ¥

Notice how nothing in those two statements make any kind of claim that supplies are currently the same.

So why should he prove something he didn't say? Why are you incapable of posting without lying?

No. He said GÇ£Lower supply with consistent demand should yield higher prices in the future. Which is what we were seeing for a while, predictibly.GÇ¥

Notice how nothing in those two statements make any kind of claim that supplies are currently the same.

So why should he prove something he didn't say? Why are you incapable of posting without lying?

"For a while".

I don't have problem with Trit going for 100 isk/unit. You should remember that it will also affect price of you supers.

Do you have a problem with it going for the lowest transaction amount the game allows, as an artificial floor

Last time I checked

100 isk/unit > 0.01 isk/unit

L2read.

"For a while".

Before this forever train continues I would just like to point out the the biggest crash has been in the ice markets which were not impacted by gun mining in any way. The low end mineral markets have so far only dropped slightly but because of the large quantities required it has had an impact and the prices will continue to fall but at a slower pace than ice has. Already we are seeing high sec systems utterly stripped clean within hours of the sever shutdown by bot fleets which is something I have never seen in the seven or eight years I have been playing.

Before this forever train continues I would just like to point out the the biggest crash has been in the ice markets which were not impacted by gun mining in any way. The low end mineral markets have so far only dropped slightly but because of the large quantities required it has had an impact and the prices will continue to fall but at a slower pace than ice has. Already we are seeing high sec systems utterly stripped clean within hours of the sever shutdown by bot fleets which is something I have never seen in the seven or eight years I have been playing.

This thread will make a legitimate attempt to engage in logical discussion about changes that could be made to the system as it is to make it less lopsided with regard to risk. A lack of risk is clearly conducive to both runaway deflation (a function of Value = Demand / Supply) and to botting, due to the ease of operation.

It is my hope that this discussion will be conducted in good faith by all participants. Having said that, here are specific changes I would propose to make for more balanced gameplay in High-security space:

• Allow smartbombs to be activated in the vicinity of anchored containers, both secure and unsecure. These containers' purpose was to hold additional ores and ices, allowing miners to increase their efficiency by remaining in the belts for a considerably longer time, given the size of cargo holds on the old barges and exhumers. Their volume is no longer conducive to anything approaching efficiency, and their ancillary presence is clearly laid out in the form of a giant smartbomb shield around high-security ice fields. That is broken.


• Increase the yield of the Hulk by adding additional grid and cpu and an extra hardpoint to make it a more attractive option for "ninja miners." This may encourage miners to try ninja mining in a way that makes sense, thus presenting themselves as potential targets, something needed drastically to combat botting and deflation.


• Introduce the chance for much more difficult NPC spawns to appear anywhere materials can be harvested, and with greater frequency. The current "threats" to mining successfully are grossly inadequate to the task, given the EHP of the new exhumers and barges.


• Make ice depletable in the same way that ores are. This will force adaptation where none has ever occurred, potentially even driving conflicts and increasing demand.


• Develop a system that legitimizes miner vs. miner conflicts over resources, such as the Ally system.

Right now the only competition between miners seems to be in jockeying for the best position to be immune from smartbombs and the waiting game of trying to decide when, precisely to unload your ore. In order for high-sec activities to have value, there needs to be high demand for them with moderate supply. Runaway supply will always break the basic equation of economic theory.

I would ask that discussion in this thread be kept to informed and intelligent posts of fact or question, rather than character attacks and mudslinging based on personal playstyle.

As always, thank you for your thoughtful participation.

If you see a bot report it. CCP gave you report tools, use them.

In case you didn't know for some people cheaper ice products are better and some of us don't even sell any ot ice we mine but instead use it. It's much better way if you actually need to use it for something like fuel. Of course it requires :effort: but it's not a problem for us.

But cheaper ice isn't better for the fellow who mines it at peak efficiency 23.5/7. It drives down his profits.

1) Why? The end result is still the same. Concord stops by to say hello.
2) lol wut?
3) I guess, but to what end? Exumers are now designed to tank well against NPCs and some players. If you throw in a difficult NPC, fitting theorists will devise a way to perma tank them. Or the miner will simply jump to a new belt. Create an NPC that's too difficult and it just discourages mining all together. Either way, attempting to use the stick to drive miners into low or null is foolish as they would sooner give up mining all together rather than mine in low or null.
4) Agreed. I personally question the purpose of having ice belts in highsec.
5) Vague and with little backing behind it. Flesh out your proposal for "miner conflicts" and come back later.

I am in agreement that "Runaway Supply" is a terrible thing for the game. Too many minerals getting pumped into the market lead to our current supercap proliferation and is still causing problems today.

That's a bot, not a player ATK.

Why do you care how much botters earn?

It impacts what players who can't mine 23.5/7 earn, too.

And that's bad for the game.

If player mines 23/7... he could die after few days at that rate.

FYI, people on botting forums are happy. Very very happy.

Can we get links or quotes? That's interesting information.

I don't know the forum rules on this. Can we talk about bot authors' and users' opinions of game mechanics?

But cheaper ice isn't better for the fellow who mines it at peak efficiency 23.5/7. It drives down his profits.

In other words, with no risk of failure comes runaway supply Runaway supply causes runaway deflation.

Miners literally will devour their own profits as locusts through a landscape.

Darth

WHO CARES if an ice miner gets his profits driven down? God only knows how much ice is mined because it's NEEDED, not sold.

And "runaway supply" will have it's OWN effect on miners if it "drives down his profits" so much that he can't mine profitably.

We don't sink oil tankers bud - it's controlled by the producers.

In Oz, iron ore took a tumble, the iron ore mines curbed production. Price is coming back up. Mines re-open. No tanks, guns or external intervention was ever used or needed.

It's a FREE market. Artifical intervention is bad mmm..kk...

Can we get links or quotes? That's interesting information.

I don't know the forum rules on this. Can we talk about bot authors' and users' opinions of game mechanics?

So long as its not providing links for the botting tools or their websites its fine.

Darth

WHO CARES if an ice miner gets his profits driven down? God only knows how much ice is mined because it's NEEDED, not sold.

And "runaway supply" will have it's OWN effect on miners if it "drives down his profits" so much that he can't mine profitably.

We don't sink oil tankers bud - it's controlled by the producers.

In Oz, iron ore took a tumble, the iron ore mines curbed production. Price is coming back up. Mines re-open. No tanks, guns or external intervention was ever used or needed.

It's a FREE market. Artifical intervention is bad mmm..kk...

No, we repeatedly invade resource-rich nations to artificially inflate the price of fuel for the common man by hampering their ability to intake resources and also by destroying the resources directly.

Thank you for making my point for me bud.

Unlike real life, miners in EVE will not slow down mining to raise the prices. For 8 years they mined the stuff at rock bottom prices.

Err Darth. You forgot the other 500,000 commodities that we errrr.... don''t invade nations to..... errr..... artifically inflate the errr.... price.

Thank you for reiterating my point for me bud.

WHO CARES if an ice miner gets his profits driven down? God only knows how much ice is mined because it's NEEDED, not sold.

And "runaway supply" will have it's OWN effect on miners if it "drives down his profits" so much that he can't mine profitably.

We don't sink oil tankers bud - it's controlled by the producers.

In Oz, iron ore took a tumble, the iron ore mines curbed production. Price is coming back up. Mines re-open. No tanks, guns or external intervention was ever used or needed.

It's a FREE market. Artifical intervention is bad mmm..kk...

The fact is we did it for a profit because we could say we didn't like what they were doing over there.