Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
|
CCP Gargant
C C P C C P Alliance
243
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 15:22:00 -
[1] - Quote
It's that time again! CCP Recurve has a new blog written about the state of price indices after the changes that were made to mining barges and exhumers on August 8th. For those of you who have been waiting for an update on the economic side of EVE Online, this is for you.
Head on over to read the whole thing
Feel free to discuss this blog and leave feedback in this thread. CCP Gargant | Community Representative | EVE Illuminati |
|
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
286
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 15:26:00 -
[2] - Quote
So this kinda shows that the barge changes screwed the ice market, maybe ice should become depletable. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Freezehunter
323
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 15:34:00 -
[3] - Quote
Maybe I don't understand macroeconomics, but if people have been mining so damn much compared to the past, how come **** is like 40%-60% more expensive than I remember it 2 years ago if there is such an ore surplus in the system?
Shouldn't prices be going DOWN with all these miners? Inappropriate signature, CCP Phantom. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
657
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 15:36:00 -
[4] - Quote
Now do one for cruisers!
PS. About 50k of those barges were goons at the very least. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Cabal |
Dusty Meg
Redbull Air Race Inc
43
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 15:38:00 -
[5] - Quote
Freezehunter wrote:Maybe I don't understand macroeconomics, but if people have been mining so damn much compared to the past, how come **** is like 40%-60% more expensive than I remember it 2 years ago if there is such an ore surplus in the system?
Shouldn't prices be going DOWN with all these miners?
Because the main source of minerals back then got took out, The drone alloys Creater of the EVE animated influence map http://www.youtube.com/user/DustMityEVE |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
286
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 15:40:00 -
[6] - Quote
Freezehunter wrote:Maybe I don't understand macroeconomics, but if people have been mining so damn much compared to the past, how come **** is like 40%-60% more expensive than I remember it 2 years ago if there is such an ore surplus in the system?
Shouldn't prices be going DOWN with all these miners? After the barge changes titanium went down about 1isk per unit, which is a lot considering. Part of the problem is that there is so much isk in circulation right now. Another thing is most of the people mining are looking for passive afk income in high sec, the system where I base out of I see around 20 afk ice miners. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
657
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 15:44:00 -
[7] - Quote
One thing I want to point out here before it gets lost in the noise. The spike in production of Procurers and Retrievers had basically nothing to do with their new usefulness. (They aren't). It had everything to do with their increased mineral costs coming in. In some cases 400%+. It was a no brainer hit.
Thank god I already cashed out half my stockpile to recover all my initial investment before this blog hit. Holla. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Cabal |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Tribal Conclave
212
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 15:46:00 -
[8] - Quote
Nice numbers and graphics!!! As an Engineer I really appreciate them!!!
I wonder How a POS revamp would change them... Now the main dificulties of setting up a minning OP in null/ WH space is the lack of usability of the POS... It would probably send more People out of Hi-sec to the unknown to mine and build.... Please read this! > New POS system ( Block Built - Starbasecraft) Please read this! >-á[Debate] - ISK SINK |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
243
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 15:47:00 -
[9] - Quote
I'd like to see how the new Ore Frigate effects volume of gas mined as well as other data. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3898
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 15:49:00 -
[10] - Quote
Holy hell we cut empire mining by half.
One out of every two peasants in the entire galaxy either put to the sword or forced to flee in terror that is one hell of a good job hi5s all around |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3898
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 15:52:00 -
[11] - Quote
I believe the hulk figures also show that the mining changes - which were based on max yield being the thing that miners should "pay" the most for - were misguided. What miners love - and what they're choosing - is legalized botting: with the current mackinaw setups they need about two minutes of attention per hour. It's clear these need to be rebalanced with this in mind: to get your legalized botting setup you should be the least gank-resistant, not the second-most, while hulks should have the second-most gank resistance. |
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe Against ALL Authorities
576
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 15:53:00 -
[12] - Quote
Nice, lots of graphs. I ******* love graphs ! FIRE FRIENDSHIP TORPEDOES ! Louis's epic skill guide v1.1 |
Dave stark
Black Nova Corp. R O G U E
750
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 16:01:00 -
[13] - Quote
Quote:Based on the increased diversity of mining barges used,
yeah, except there isn't. your graphs even show that the only thing to happen was people dumped their hulks for mackinaws since the tiny yield difference wasn't worth sacrificing a better tank, and an ore bay almost equal to the orca's.
ccp, your rebalance for exhumers failed horribly. you simply crowned another king instead of making any meaningful changes, as i predicted in numerous threads before the patch went live. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Intrepid Crossing
439
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 16:05:00 -
[14] - Quote
Aryth wrote:One thing I want to point out here before it gets lost in the noise. The spike in production of Procurers and Retrievers had basically nothing to do with their new usefulness. (They aren't). It had everything to do with their increased mineral costs coming in. In some cases 400%+. It was a no brainer hit.
Thank god I already cashed out half my stockpile to recover all my initial investment before this blog hit. Holla. That's what I thought as well. That graph isn't very useful but maybe a comparison to total market sales at that time would be helpful to see if it was just market activity
The rest of the blog is interesting though.
Why no discussion about rebalancing ores? Abcm are no longer top of the chain like they should be (yes they should be because that's how mining was designed).
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Get EVE Isk per Hour! |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
575
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 16:05:00 -
[15] - Quote
Aryth wrote:One thing I want to point out here before it gets lost in the noise. The spike in production of Procurers and Retrievers had basically nothing to do with their new usefulness. (They aren't). It had everything to do with their increased mineral costs coming in. In some cases 400%+. It was a no brainer hit.
Thank god I already cashed out half my stockpile to recover all my initial investment before this blog hit. Holla.
Yeah, people were wondering how long it was going to take before the prices return to near mineral value ... i guess now we know there's only a stockpile of 250k+ retrievers out there made at the lower cost.
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3898
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 16:08:00 -
[16] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:Aryth wrote:One thing I want to point out here before it gets lost in the noise. The spike in production of Procurers and Retrievers had basically nothing to do with their new usefulness. (They aren't). It had everything to do with their increased mineral costs coming in. In some cases 400%+. It was a no brainer hit.
Thank god I already cashed out half my stockpile to recover all my initial investment before this blog hit. Holla. Yeah, people were wondering how long it was going to take before the prices return to near mineral value ... i guess now we know there's only a stockpile of 250k+ retrievers out there made at the lower cost. procurers, not retrievers |
Dave stark
Black Nova Corp. R O G U E
750
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 16:08:00 -
[17] - Quote
Zifrian wrote:Why no discussion about rebalancing ores? Abcm are no longer top of the chain like they should be (yes they should be because that's how mining was designed).
i have a feeling that they're saving that for a blog about null sec industry as a whole. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices Silent Infinity
50
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 16:26:00 -
[18] - Quote
the "mining barges" graph, for the larger image, links to the Exhumers_Produced.png, could you please fix this?
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
813
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 16:27:00 -
[19] - Quote
Graphs |
ChromeStriker
The Riot Formation Unclaimed.
284
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 16:28:00 -
[20] - Quote
Graphs \o/
- Nulla Curas |
|
Lucent Setien
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 16:28:00 -
[21] - Quote
As a new player this type of information both intrigues and scares me. It all seems so daunting. |
|
CCP Gargant
C C P C C P Alliance
244
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 16:40:00 -
[22] - Quote
Magic Crisp wrote:the "mining barges" graph, for the larger image, links to the Exhumers_Produced.png, could you please fix this?
Yes, I fixed that. You should only have to refresh the blog. CCP Gargant | Community Representative | EVE Illuminati |
|
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
984
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 17:00:00 -
[23] - Quote
It's been said, but I'm saying it again.
"Diversity"?
Really?
What we're seeing is not diversity but a 1:1 or greater replacement of hulks with mackinaws. Over time I expect hulk usage will decrease, in fact!
From the blog you seem to almost get it, if the afk mining comments are any indication, but I figure I'll spell it out.
Mining is boring.
Because mining is boring, players always gravitate to the best isk:effort ratio.
Previously to the revamps, the best ratio was the hulk, because all the ships were the same, just lower or higher yield. Therefore, the hulk was king.
Now the mackinaw is a thing. You can get like 90% of the volume for a fraction of the effort - the mackinaw unloads its cargo every twenty-ish minutes, while the hulk is every three. Sixfold drop in effort for a 10% drop in yield is a no-brainer, and the better tank is like a cherry on top.
In short, ya'll screwed up. Lately you've been, for better or worse, pretty good about addressing your screw ups. How about another look at this one? This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
839
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 17:03:00 -
[24] - Quote
Zifrian wrote:Aryth wrote:One thing I want to point out here before it gets lost in the noise. The spike in production of Procurers and Retrievers had basically nothing to do with their new usefulness. (They aren't). It had everything to do with their increased mineral costs coming in. In some cases 400%+. It was a no brainer hit.
Thank god I already cashed out half my stockpile to recover all my initial investment before this blog hit. Holla. That's what I thought as well. That graph isn't very useful but maybe a comparison to total market sales at that time would be helpful to see if it was just market activity The rest of the blog is interesting though. Why no discussion about rebalancing ores? Abcm are no longer top of the chain like they should be (yes they should be because that's how mining was designed).
ABCs might not be top of the pile (A is close, B and C are below some highsec ores) but they do have one significant benefit. They refine down far smaller, making transport logistics far far easier, than transferring the trit you got from your millions of m3 of Veldspar. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities.As well as mysql and CSV/XLS conversions of the Static Data Extract. |
Dave stark
Black Nova Corp. R O G U E
752
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 17:09:00 -
[25] - Quote
corestwo wrote:In short, ya'll screwed up. Lately you've been, for better or worse, pretty good about addressing your screw ups. How about another look at this one?
last paragraph of the dev blog wrote:it would seem safe to assume that the changes to mining barges and exhumers turned out well.
unless you like looking like a smurf; i wouldn't hold your breath. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Callic Veratar
Power of the Phoenix
288
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 17:15:00 -
[26] - Quote
Freezehunter wrote:Maybe I don't understand macroeconomics, but if people have been mining so damn much compared to the past, how come **** is like 40%-60% more expensive than I remember it 2 years ago if there is such an ore surplus in the system?
Shouldn't prices be going DOWN with all these miners?
Something important to remember as well is that all the rebalanced frigates, destroyers, and cruisers have had their manufacturing costs increased.
Pre-Retribution it required about 2000 trit to build a Bantam, Navitas, or Burst. Now it requires over 20000 per ship. The same change in manufacturing cost happened for the Slasher, Atron, Condor, Executioner, and Tormentor in earlier releases.
The other frigates were increase, but the effects not so dramatic. Also, there's been a heavy emphasis on stockpiling, among people I talk to, for the next hulkageddon or whatever. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1099
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 17:23:00 -
[27] - Quote
Now give us a graph showing Mining Vessels destroyed. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
839
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 17:25:00 -
[28] - Quote
/me mutters about the falling prices, thus profit margin, on many T2 goods.
The falling costs don't impact enough to make up for the falling sale price. Oh well, diversification keeps things interesting. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities.As well as mysql and CSV/XLS conversions of the Static Data Extract. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3901
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 17:26:00 -
[29] - Quote
*legalized botting explodes*
hmm what excellent balancing we did |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
1222
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 17:29:00 -
[30] - Quote
The large ore hold may make the Mack the king of ice mining, but not ore mining. But the Mack was the ice mining king before, so whats new? In the case of ore, its a rare high sec roid field where you can aim 2 strips at 2 roids then 24 minutes later return to a full hold. Many roids deplete in a single strip cycle. If you really want to see mineral prices go down, CCP should refactor roid fields to having fewer roids, each with more ore. That way ore can be mined like ice is mined, with little effort.
http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3901
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 17:32:00 -
[31] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:The large ore hold may make the Mack the king of ice mining, but not ore mining. But the Mack was the ice mining king before, so whats new? In the case of ore, its a rare high sec roid field where you can aim 2 strips at 2 roids then 24 minutes later return to a full hold. Many roids deplete in a single strip cycle. If you really want to see mineral prices go down, CCP should refactor roid fields to having fewer roids, each with more ore. That way ore can be mined like ice is mined, with little effort.
"what we need is our legalized botting to become even easier" |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
187
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 17:34:00 -
[32] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:The large ore hold may make the Mack the king of ice mining, but not ore mining. But the Mack was the ice mining king before, so whats new? In the case of ore, its a rare high sec roid field where you can aim 2 strips at 2 roids then 24 minutes later return to a full hold. Many roids deplete in a single strip cycle. If you really want to see mineral prices go down, CCP should refactor roid fields to having fewer roids, each with more ore. That way ore can be mined like ice is mined, with little effort.
And if they want to go the other way, they can redo the yield bonus as a cycle time reduction, so that the "asteroid is depleted" notifications better line up with the asteroids popping.
I don't know, but I suspect, that a lot of semi-AFK Mack and Retriever pilots don't even notice that they've popped an asteroid until the strip miner cycle finally comes to an end and Aura pipes up to tell them. |
Dave stark
Black Nova Corp. R O G U E
752
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 17:37:00 -
[33] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:The large ore hold may make the Mack the king of ice mining, but not ore mining. But the Mack was the ice mining king before, so whats new? In the case of ore, its a rare high sec roid field where you can aim 2 strips at 2 roids then 24 minutes later return to a full hold. Many roids deplete in a single strip cycle. If you really want to see mineral prices go down, CCP should refactor roid fields to having fewer roids, each with more ore. That way ore can be mined like ice is mined, with little effort.
yes it does.
it takes about 2 seconds to start the lasers on a new asteroid, unless you've taken the dog for a walk or gone for a nap the mackinaw is the king at every type of mining that involves targeting floaty things in space. i dread to think how many series of tv shows i've watched while mining ore in a mackinaw while paying 0 attention to the eve client other than when i hear "asteroid depleted" Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Dave stark
Black Nova Corp. R O G U E
752
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 17:37:00 -
[34] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:The large ore hold may make the Mack the king of ice mining, but not ore mining. But the Mack was the ice mining king before, so whats new? In the case of ore, its a rare high sec roid field where you can aim 2 strips at 2 roids then 24 minutes later return to a full hold. Many roids deplete in a single strip cycle. If you really want to see mineral prices go down, CCP should refactor roid fields to having fewer roids, each with more ore. That way ore can be mined like ice is mined, with little effort.
And if they want to go the other way, they can redo the yield bonus as a cycle time reduction, so that the "asteroid is depleted" notifications better line up with the asteroids popping. I don't know, but I suspect, that a lot of semi-AFK Mack and Retriever pilots don't even notice that they've popped an asteroid until the strip miner cycle finally comes to an end and Aura pipes up to tell them.
considering that's the only way to tell unless you want to sacrifice a mid slot for a scanner that needs manually refreshing every cycle.... Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
657
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 18:08:00 -
[35] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:The large ore hold may make the Mack the king of ice mining, but not ore mining. But the Mack was the ice mining king before, so whats new? In the case of ore, its a rare high sec roid field where you can aim 2 strips at 2 roids then 24 minutes later return to a full hold. Many roids deplete in a single strip cycle. If you really want to see mineral prices go down, CCP should refactor roid fields to having fewer roids, each with more ore. That way ore can be mined like ice is mined, with little effort.
"what we need is our legalized botting to become even easier"
Then they release the Sreegs and ban people for making money while afk! How cunning of them. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Cabal |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
1462
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 18:16:00 -
[36] - Quote
Can somebody explain to me why the mineral price index is over the consumer price index? Why doesn't that put every industrial out of business?
|
Freezehunter
325
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 18:16:00 -
[37] - Quote
Dusty Meg wrote:Freezehunter wrote:Maybe I don't understand macroeconomics, but if people have been mining so damn much compared to the past, how come **** is like 40%-60% more expensive than I remember it 2 years ago if there is such an ore surplus in the system?
Shouldn't prices be going DOWN with all these miners? Because the main source of minerals back then got took out, The drone alloys
Good point, I didn't take that into consideration.
So basically, if they wouldn't have made the barge changes, the situation would be even worse regarding ship prices?
Damn... Inappropriate signature, CCP Phantom. |
Molic Blackbird
Orion Faction Industries Orion Consortium
57
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 18:47:00 -
[38] - Quote
People are still building Procurers? Retrievers I can kind of see, but with the selling price of Procurers being one fifth the build cost, why would anyone build them? |
Rick Rymes
Red Federation
11
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 19:13:00 -
[39] - Quote
Molic Blackbird wrote:People are still building Procurers? Retrievers I can kind of see, but with the selling price of Procurers being one fifth the build cost, why would anyone build them?
I imagine people are expecting another Hulkageddon, Procurer would become the barge of choice overnight. |
Yuki Kasumi
Some names are just stupid
3
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 19:26:00 -
[40] - Quote
Rick Rymes wrote:Molic Blackbird wrote:People are still building Procurers? Retrievers I can kind of see, but with the selling price of Procurers being one fifth the build cost, why would anyone build them? I imagine people are expecting another Hulkageddon, Procurer would become the barge of choice overnight.
Then if thats the case, BUY them, not build them for 4x the price :) |
|
Jen Takhesis
The Scope Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 19:30:00 -
[41] - Quote
Rick Rymes wrote:
I imagine people are expecting another Hulkageddon, Procurer would become the barge of choice overnight.
I'm hoping for a Smack a Mack' first, followed by another Hulkageddon. |
Buzz Skywalker
Magnificent Mayhem Mining
6
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 19:34:00 -
[42] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:I believe the hulk figures also show that the mining changes - which were based on max yield being the thing that miners should "pay" the most for - were misguided. What miners love - and what they're choosing - is legalized botting: with the current mackinaw setups they need about two minutes of attention per hour. It's clear these need to be rebalanced with this in mind: to get your legalized botting setup you should be the least gank-resistant, not the second-most, while hulks should have the second-most gank resistance. The yield differential isn't sufficient to overcome the cargo hold on the Mackinaw or the tank on the Skiff for any but the most dedicated miners. I'd bet that most miners in Mackinaws don't even have perfect mining skills. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
1181
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 20:02:00 -
[43] - Quote
That's a big part of the problem, there's just not enough difference between the Hulk/Covetor and the Mack/Retriever. The Hulk and Covetors need about another 5-10% yield/hr over the Mack/Retty in order for them to be preferred for at-the-keyboard mining.
Then there's the whole issue that the preferred mining pair is now a hulk+mack where the mack acts as the hauler for the mini-fleet. The T1 industrial ships can't haul that much, and the Orca's 50k m3 ore bay is now pretty much a joke (that needs to be boosted up into the 400-600k m3 range). |
Panhead4411
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
259
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 20:06:00 -
[44] - Quote
Hey CCP, you forgot to mention how you decided it was best if nobody built T1 barges, like the Procurer ever again....since you still refuse to change the scrap rates, why would someone build one when it costs 5x more than they can buy it for on the market? http://blog.beyondreality.se/shift-click-does-nothing -á-á < Unified Inventory is NOT ready... |
Smodab Ongalot
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
132
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 20:35:00 -
[45] - Quote
Panhead4411 wrote:Hey CCP, you forgot to mention how you decided it was best if nobody built T1 barges, like the Procurer ever again....since you still refuse to change the scrap rates, why would someone build one when it costs 5x more than they can buy it for on the market?
They actually thought this one out, more so than your idiotic response.....
What are you suggesting about scrap rates? Are you suggesting that we should be able to reprocess ships and get more minerals back than we put in?
Because I can't see any issues with that....
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
664
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 20:44:00 -
[46] - Quote
Smodab Ongalot wrote:Panhead4411 wrote:Hey CCP, you forgot to mention how you decided it was best if nobody built T1 barges, like the Procurer ever again....since you still refuse to change the scrap rates, why would someone build one when it costs 5x more than they can buy it for on the market? They actually thought this one out, more so than your idiotic response..... What are you suggesting about scrap rates? Are you suggesting that we should be able to reprocess ships and get more minerals back than we put in? Because I can't see any issues with that....
Beyond the greed part. He is saying that no one is going to be making procurers when the market is glutted for the next 2 years. Which is what happened in PI also. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Cabal Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve. |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
192
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 21:01:00 -
[47] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:Then there's the whole issue that the preferred mining pair is now a hulk+mack where the mack acts as the hauler for the mini-fleet. The T1 industrial ships can't haul that much, and the Orca's 50k m3 ore bay is now pretty much a joke (that needs to be boosted up into the 400-600k m3 range).
That would be a great opportunity to split the Orca up into the four or so ships that it's always wanted to be, with the Orca remaining behind as a sort of jack-of-all-trades (because that's quite useful).
If there was a fitted ship hauler, and a flying corp hangar, and a flying ore bay, and a "little freighter" in addition to the ordinary Orca, the ORE Industrial Command Ship skill would be even more valuable.
In addition to changing the yield bonus to a cycle time reduction, I'd support nerfing the yield on Retrievers and Mackinaws, maybe even down to parity with the Skiff. That way, there's a more difficult choice between tank, convenience or yield. The alternative is buffing the Hulk, and I don't really see the need for that. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
2209
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 21:17:00 -
[48] - Quote
From the point of view of a miner, here's how the ships pan out:
- Skiff has a huge tank, huge ore bay, suitable for AFK mining in hostile hisec
- Mackinaw has a gigantic ore bay, enough tank that only the really dedicated gankers are going to attack it in hostile hisec, and folks in lowsec are going to suspect that you're bait, not just a solo miner
- Hulk doesn't have enough extra yield to make it worth using over a Mackinaw
The tank on the Mackinaw is insanely good. The idea of giving the mining ship with the largest ore bay such a huge tank was obviously aimed smack bang at AFK miners. The catch is that its yield is far too good, so even when you are actively running a fleet the preference is to have the Orca parked somewhere "safe" providing the mining boosts (e.g.: snuggled in a POS, keeping the mining foreman mindlink safe from gankers) with all the miners in Mackinaws. The time taken to warp all the Mackinaws to station and back to belt is more than made up by the time saved over warping a hulk to station and back to belt.
To redress this imbalance, the Mackinaw should have the lowest yield. This could be achieved by simply halving the Retriever & Mackinaw bonus to strip miner cycle time. It's designed for "safe" AFK mining. AFK miners should not get the same rewards as at-keyboard miners. If you want more yield, pick the mining ship with the medium yield and medium ore bay (Procurer/Skiff), or the mining ship with the maximum yield.
The Mackinaw/Retriever is severely overpowered/imbalanced. Halving its cycle time bonus would be a good first step at balancing it with the other mining vessels.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Dave stark
Black Nova Corp. R O G U E
757
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 21:35:00 -
[49] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:The tank on the Mackinaw is insanely good. The idea of giving the mining ship with the largest ore bay such a huge tank was obviously aimed smack bang at AFK miners. The catch is that its yield is far too good,
this is the crux of it, really.
if you look at each ship individually, it should be excellent at one thing, average at another, and terrible at something else.
let's look at the skiff. best tank, check 1 for excellent at one thing. medium ore bay, check 2 for average at something, lowest yield so check 3 for being terrible at something.
so, why doesn't this hold with the mackinaw and hulk? the mackinaw is terrible at nothing. it has the best ore bay, and medium yield AND tank. the hulk on the other hand is mediocre at nothing, it's got the best yield then the worst tank and ore bay. just as a quick point, if you rate being the "best" at something as a 3, average as a 2, and worst as a 1. and work out how many points each ship scores, it's obvious that the mackinaw wins with 7 points for being the worst at nothing, followed by the skiff's 6 points for having one of each, and the hulk trails behind with 5 as it has to "terrible" stats.
a suggestion i've seen before, and one i like therefore i'm "stealing" it is that the hulk and mackinaw's tank should be switched. if you want to go and leave your mackinaw afk mining the price should be a paper thin ship. besides, if you've got so much empty space inside your ship there's not going to be much space for armour plates and structure is there? if we go back to my point above about being good at one thing, average at another, and terrible at another then this problem would also be solved by the tank switch. the mackinaw's tank goes from average to terrible, and the hulk's goes from terrible to average, and thus all the exhumers score a 6.
now you have a choice between high risk afk easy mode, or slightly safer higher reward afk-less mining, or super safe semi-afk mining at the cost of yield. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
994
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 22:34:00 -
[50] - Quote
Buzz Skywalker wrote:Weaselior wrote:I believe the hulk figures also show that the mining changes - which were based on max yield being the thing that miners should "pay" the most for - were misguided. What miners love - and what they're choosing - is legalized botting: with the current mackinaw setups they need about two minutes of attention per hour. It's clear these need to be rebalanced with this in mind: to get your legalized botting setup you should be the least gank-resistant, not the second-most, while hulks should have the second-most gank resistance. The yield differential isn't sufficient to overcome the cargo hold on the Mackinaw or the tank on the Skiff for any but the most dedicated miners. I'd bet that most miners in Mackinaws don't even have perfect mining skills.
That's exactly it. As I said - isk:effort (or isk:attention, if you prefer) is what rules mining, because it's boring. Prior to the changes the hulk ruled because the only way to increase that ratio was to increase your overall yield, and this was mistaken for favoring yield over all. The fact that the tank is "good enough" to dissuade casual suicide ganking is just a bonus.
In light of that, I'd absolutely support the idea of swapping the tank on the mack and hulk, though it's a quick fix, a bandaid; something more nuanced should probably happen for the long term. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
|
HxChippiewill
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 22:48:00 -
[51] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:I believe the hulk figures also show that the mining changes - which were based on max yield being the thing that miners should "pay" the most for - were misguided. What miners love - and what they're choosing - is legalized botting: with the current mackinaw setups they need about two minutes of attention per hour. It's clear these need to be rebalanced with this in mind: to get your legalized botting setup you should be the least gank-resistant, not the second-most, while hulks should have the second-most gank resistance. Actually this is fairly misguided, the highest yield solo mining is the mackinaw regardless due to transit times. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
1222
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 23:31:00 -
[52] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:The large ore hold may make the Mack the king of ice mining, but not ore mining. But the Mack was the ice mining king before, so whats new? In the case of ore, its a rare high sec roid field where you can aim 2 strips at 2 roids then 24 minutes later return to a full hold. Many roids deplete in a single strip cycle. If you really want to see mineral prices go down, CCP should refactor roid fields to having fewer roids, each with more ore. That way ore can be mined like ice is mined, with little effort.
yes it does. it takes about 2 seconds to start the lasers on a new asteroid, unless you've taken the dog for a walk or gone for a nap the mackinaw is the king at every type of mining that involves targeting floaty things in space. i dread to think how many series of tv shows i've watched while mining ore in a mackinaw while paying 0 attention to the eve client other than when i hear "asteroid depleted" If you are watching TV with the keyboard on your lap, you are hardly AFK. Its right there, on your lap. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Mara Tessidar
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
673
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 23:39:00 -
[53] - Quote
Hey, maybe if CCP listened to some of the smarter suggestions out there about fixing the production and mining systems, we wouldn't be looking at AFK highsec mining in Mackinaws being the pinnacle of industry. But CCP doesn't. And we are. EveO is a circus train that is for bafflingly unclear reasons also carrying tanks of chlorine gas,-ácrashing and exploding in the middle of a small midwestern town. -áCalling it a mere train wreck gives neither the entertainment nor the horror it offers its proper due. |
Haifisch Zahne
Hraka Manufacture GmbH
128
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 23:41:00 -
[54] - Quote
So, let me see if I can summarize without all the CCP Hype/FUD:
1) PLEX prices continued to go up (a lot);
2) Consumer prices only decreased 1% for the year (*unethusiastic thumb twirl*);
3) ***All*** gains in mining use is in high sec with afk mining ships, notably the Retriever and its big brother (wait, wasn't CCP trying to put an end to this kind of botting?)
4) Mining ship production spiked briefly (but we hear nothing about subsequent sales as people realized their mistake?)
3) Morphite prices went up over January (forget the decrease with the changes)
So, same old, same old. Except we have more botters. |
Mara Tessidar
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
673
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 23:48:00 -
[55] - Quote
I forgot to add: congratulations to the economist working for CCP for his smoke and mirrors abilities. The data is clearly selectively taken to show what CCP wants to say, and not what was going on. EveO is a circus train that is for bafflingly unclear reasons also carrying tanks of chlorine gas,-ácrashing and exploding in the middle of a small midwestern town. -áCalling it a mere train wreck gives neither the entertainment nor the horror it offers its proper due. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
839
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 00:16:00 -
[56] - Quote
Haifisch Zahne wrote: 4) Mining ship production spiked briefly (but we hear nothing about subsequent sales as people realized their mistake?)
What mistake?
The mistake which will, eventually, give me a ten fold return on investment?
Sure, It'll take a fair time. But it's pretty much no risk. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities.As well as mysql and CSV/XLS conversions of the Static Data Extract. |
Haifisch Zahne
Hraka Manufacture GmbH
128
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 00:41:00 -
[57] - Quote
I don't mine. Did it when I started Eve and gave it a go lately out of boredom. Here I go anyway.
It seems to me the suggestion quoted is marvelous. Specialization of the mining fleet, with application to other situations.
As suggested in another devblog, a conceptual basis for an Ore/Container hauler design might be:
Haulers
My added suggestion was to give the ship a changing look (forget the dev's term for these moving parts on ships) as containers were added over time-- perhaps it would have to enter into a "loading mode" like a Rorqual in Industrial ore compression mode. The hauler would need a capital tractor beam, decent agility and, ideally, bonuses to warp corp stability to make it competitive with freighters which can now load cargo in space (albeit from absolutely one place). If it were truly ore specific, something along the lines of an oil tanker (?) might be more in line-- but not as cool looking as the cargo ships above.
I would think a (universal) ship hauler/corp hanger could be combined into one ship with a limited number of slots. Such a ship might even have a usefulness in combat, if it was agile enough and had, ideally, some bonuses to warp core stability or slots to add them in order to GTFO. In my mind, it would more closely resemble the actual role of an aircraft carrier.
I think Eve has enough industrials, and if the above two ships were implemented correctly (good luck with CCP doing that!), then there would be little need for an additional mining specific one. Don't know if CCP had in mind loading Freighters with Industrials running around, it seems ludicrous.
Dersen Lowery wrote:Scrapyard Bob wrote:Then there's the whole issue that the preferred mining pair is now a hulk+mack where the mack acts as the hauler for the mini-fleet. The T1 industrial ships can't haul that much, and the Orca's 50k m3 ore bay is now pretty much a joke (that needs to be boosted up into the 400-600k m3 range). That would be a great opportunity to split the Orca up into the four or so ships that it's always wanted to be, with the Orca remaining behind as a sort of jack-of-all-trades (because that's quite useful). If there was a fitted ship hauler, and a flying corp hangar, and a flying ore bay, and a "little freighter" in addition to the ordinary Orca, the ORE Industrial Command Ship skill would be even more valuable. |
Haifisch Zahne
Hraka Manufacture GmbH
128
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 00:43:00 -
[58] - Quote
Yes, let's put your short-term profit ahead of everything else.
Point is: the changes did nothing.
Steve Ronuken wrote:Haifisch Zahne wrote: 4) Mining ship production spiked briefly (but we hear nothing about subsequent sales as people realized their mistake?)
What mistake? The mistake which will, eventually, give me a ten fold return on investment? Sure, It'll take a fair time. But it's pretty much no risk.
|
Merouk Baas
54
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 01:31:00 -
[59] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:"what we need is our legalized botting to become even easier"
IMO, why the **** not? People complain that mining is boring, and in the same post demand that CCP make it more frustrating, via interface-clicking no less. "We like to suffer, CCP, make us suffer this boring activity with even more pain!"
It's boring, we need minerals, someone has to mine. CCP can declare botting illegal all they want, and spend time hunting bots down, or they can let the masses AFK mine without the need for a bot, and save themselves some time and effort. |
Camios
Minmatar Bread Corporation
115
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 03:54:00 -
[60] - Quote
First: if the mineral volume is increased so much in highsec, I would expect a reduction of lowend ore prices. It's not happening, so what? Is the lowend market going to crash in the next months?
Second: the fact that the most used barge is the one for AFK mining means that mining is just not fun and miners are not mining in order to chil out with friends. This is just a big lie. |
|
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
302
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 04:30:00 -
[61] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:From the point of view of a miner, here's how the ships pan out:
- Skiff has a huge tank, huge ore bay, suitable for AFK mining in hostile hisec
- Mackinaw has a gigantic ore bay, enough tank that only the really dedicated gankers are going to attack it in hostile hisec, and folks in lowsec are going to suspect that you're bait, not just a solo miner
- Hulk doesn't have enough extra yield to make it worth using over a Mackinaw
Let's not forget the T1 mining barges:
The Covetor was fairly useless before the changes (due to the SP requirements being nearly the same as the Hulk) and remains fairly useless after the changes, due to the buffs to the Retriever and Procurer.
The Retriever used to have a mining efficiency of 2/3 of a Covetor. Now, it is about 83% of a max-skilled Covetor, despite the fact that the Covetor has an extra turret (which still makes no sense to me). The cargohold buff makes it perfect for AFK mining, and it even tanks better than before. Sure, it isn't a Mack, but it also costs a lot less to replace when it inevitably gets ganked - esp. if you were smart enough to stock up prior to the BPO changes, when they cost around 7-8M each.
The Procurer used to have a mining efficiency of 1/3 of a Covetor or 1/2 of a Retriever. Now, the Procurer is equal to the Retriever. The cargohold isn't as good as the Retriever, but it is still much larger than the old Covetor - so, it, too, can now be used for AFK mining. And, it has an absurd tank. Again, not quite a Skiff, but much, much cheaper - pre-buff, the Procurer cost around 2M each. Thanks to the massive oversupply, they are still available for dirt cheap prices. To add insult to injury, a Procurer with a single strip miner or ice harvester can mine as well as a Retriever with 2 strips/harvesters , so even the fitting cost is lower.
Both the Retriever and Procurer can now be used effectively for ice mining, thanks to the new cargoholds. Pre-buff - not so much, since they didn't have the turret bonuses and, even with cargo expanders, the old ships could not hold much ice.
A Retriever can still be ganked by a solo dessie (esp. since most miners fit for max efficiency, not max tank). But, I don't think you can cost effectively gank a Procurer (by which I mean ensuring that the victim suffers greater loss of ISK than the ganker). Maybe with a fleet of noob ships... but, you are certainly not going to want to use a Tornado to pop a Procurer.
And, finally, the SP requirements for getting into a T1 mining barge are pretty darn low - less than 1 week - making high sec AFK mining all that much easier for everyone. |
Dave stark
Black Nova Corp. R O G U E
759
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 08:03:00 -
[62] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Dave stark wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:The large ore hold may make the Mack the king of ice mining, but not ore mining. But the Mack was the ice mining king before, so whats new? In the case of ore, its a rare high sec roid field where you can aim 2 strips at 2 roids then 24 minutes later return to a full hold. Many roids deplete in a single strip cycle. If you really want to see mineral prices go down, CCP should refactor roid fields to having fewer roids, each with more ore. That way ore can be mined like ice is mined, with little effort.
yes it does. it takes about 2 seconds to start the lasers on a new asteroid, unless you've taken the dog for a walk or gone for a nap the mackinaw is the king at every type of mining that involves targeting floaty things in space. i dread to think how many series of tv shows i've watched while mining ore in a mackinaw while paying 0 attention to the eve client other than when i hear "asteroid depleted" If you are watching TV with the keyboard on your lap, you are hardly AFK. Its right there, on your lap.
i'm still paying 0 attention to the game, though.
Mara Tessidar wrote:I forgot to add: congratulations to the economist working for CCP for his smoke and mirrors abilities. The data is clearly selectively taken to show what CCP wants to say, and not what was going on.
haha, it really is. it reminds me of the stuff i used to hand in at university to my teachers knowing full well that i'd get marks for relevant analysis (eg the mineral price graph in the dev blog) while knowing that they also wouldn't deduct any marks for missing the point entirely and analysing irrelevant things. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Remiel Pollard
Devlin Security Devlin Alliance
274
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 08:45:00 -
[63] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Freezehunter wrote:Maybe I don't understand macroeconomics, but if people have been mining so damn much compared to the past, how come **** is like 40%-60% more expensive than I remember it 2 years ago if there is such an ore surplus in the system?
Shouldn't prices be going DOWN with all these miners? After the barge changes titanium went down about 1isk per unit, which is a lot considering. Part of the problem is that there is so much isk in circulation right now. Another thing is most of the people mining are looking for passive afk income in high sec, the system where I base out of I see around 20 afk ice miners.
With the AI improvements making level 4 missions a lot harder (aka stealth level 4 mission nerf), there should be much less isk coming onto the market. Additionally, the new bounty system is already working as a quality isk sink (unless this is just a phase that people are going through because they can). You don't scare me. I've been to Jita. |
GallowsCalibrator
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
120
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 09:33:00 -
[64] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:I believe the hulk figures also show that the mining changes - which were based on max yield being the thing that miners should "pay" the most for - were misguided. What miners love - and what they're choosing - is legalized botting: with the current mackinaw setups they need about two minutes of attention per hour. It's clear these need to be rebalanced with this in mind: to get your legalized botting setup you should be the least gank-resistant, not the second-most, while hulks should have the second-most gank resistance.
Definitely agreeing with this - With the old setup configuring for AFKness would always decrease survivability and that should be the case now.
The AFKminer should be under a lot more danger to make up for this - in terms of suicideganking I'd say a ballpark of 'can be killed by a single high dps cruiser or battlecruiser in 0.5'.
And maybe throw a bit more yield bonus on the hulk because it's still suffering in that - it's themed bonus is nowhere near the scale of the other two. |
James Amril-Kesh
RAZOR Alliance
1434
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 11:00:00 -
[65] - Quote
Pre Inferno Players: "CCP these mining barge changes are a bad idea, Mackinaw is too good seeing as it has good enough tank to avoid getting ganked meaning only the most paranoid will ever use the Skiff, the biggest ore bay, and enough yield that it's still very competitive against the Hulk for considerably less effort." CCP: "But teiricide! Roles! Ganking was never meant to be profitable!"
Post Inferno: Players: "Look CCP, all we see now are Mackinaws everywhere, Hulks are used FAR less than they were before and Mackinaws got a disproportionally large boost. Two Mackinaws get better yield than a Hulk + Orca with full fleet boosts, and even players in large mining fleets mine in Mackinaws often for convenience." CCP: *silence*
Post Retribution: CCP: "Look, players! We've evaluated the mining barge changes, and we've made this pretty graph that confirms what you said about the Mackinaw. Not only that, but we've shown that this barge change has had no significant effect on mining anywhere outside of highsec. We like the way this turned out!" Players: "WTF, how could you possibly look at that data and say you're HAPPY with these changes?"
Switch the EHP of the Mackinaw and the Hulk. Problem fixed. -áObjects in mirror are redder than they appear. |
JamesCLK
215
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 11:25:00 -
[66] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Switch the EHP of the Mackinaw and the Hulk. Problem fixed. More like: 'Band-aid II' applied to sucking chest wound. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go mine. In a Kestrel... |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
29
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 12:02:00 -
[67] - Quote
People Please - I think CCP have fixed some of the things you were talking about.
I dumped my Hulks and started Using Macks. I did this because - Although I have always used a Tank on my ships - i'm in faction warfare - see my other posts - Mining was a pain due to constant trips to the station. It's like constant trips to the toilet on a night out - irritating but necessary. The Mack's mineral hold was an epic gift - it helped make mining FUN - you know?.
A lot of people draw a connection between bigger holds and bots. Well maybe. I feel the negative connection is more likely between a bigger hold and more AFK. But what manifest itself for me was more mining - because I hated leaving my stop to go back to the station all the time. I hated even using Industrials - load them - return - dump - out to fleet - load - return - dump - etc - etc - it - isn't - fun.
Industrials were OK in the olden days - but only for limited amounts of time - I couldn't stand more than an holur of it - The Mack removed this tedium somewhat. But also made the industrial less relevant to mining operations - even a DST isn't big enough - and my Orca isn't really big enough anymore. . .
I want to mine for about 1.5 hours - typically - same as a LvL 4 mission and salvage. I don't like the constant trips to the station from the old mining.
BUT NOW. . . . Now I can use a Freighter!!!! I'm going to swap back to Hulks - really - for Mining Operations. If I'm AFKing one account whilst the others do something else I'll take a Mack. If I'm going to Lo Sec I'll take a Skiff - or I'll try this new mining frigate!
They're are all options now. A new King was crowned with the Mack - but the Hulk IS coming back for gangs. Just a shame we lost a specific Ice Ship. . . |
Balder Verdandi
Czerka. The Aslyum
79
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 13:38:00 -
[68] - Quote
I have to agree with the others .... the addition of the mining frigate should also include a change, from the perspective of an industrialist, to the other mining vessels that honestly make more sense.
Procurer Changes: BC-like tank, +1 warp strength, remove ice harvesting modules. Add drone bay of 25 m3. Add crystal bay of 250 m3. Reduce ore bay to 7k m3. Reduce middle fitting by 1 66% reduction of cap use by strip miners Increase maneuverability.
Retriever Changes: BS-like tank. Add drone bay of 50 m3. Add crystal bay of 500 m3. Reduce ore bay to 18k m3, but keep "Mining Barge" skill bonus per level of 5% bonus to ore hold capacity. Increase middle fitting by 2.
Covetor Changes: BS-like tank including an additional 10k EHP on shields. Add drone bay of 75 m3. Add crystal bay of 500 m3. Increase ore bay to 12k m3. Increase middle fitting by 3.
Skiff Changes: BC-like tank, +1 warp strength. Add drone bay of 25 m3 Add crystal bay of 350 m3 Increase maneuverability.
Mackinaw Changes: BS-like tank. Add drone bay of 50 m3. Add crystal bay of 500 m3. Reduce ore bay to 24k m3, but keep "Mining Barge" skill bonus per level of 5% bonus to ore hold capacity.
Hulk Changes: BS-like tank, including 15k EHP on shields. Add drone bay of 75 m3. Add crystal bay of 500 m3. Increase ore bay to 20k m3, but include "Mining Barge" skill bonus per level of 5% bonus to ore hold capacity. Strip miner boost for fleet ops of 5% on top of boost from fleet booster. I don't stab people in the back. -áWhen you do, you miss the look on their face and that's priceless.
Long live the failure known as "Unified Inventory"! |
Jens Beckstrom
Free Space Initiative
3
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 13:38:00 -
[69] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:Aryth wrote:One thing I want to point out here before it gets lost in the noise. The spike in production of Procurers and Retrievers had basically nothing to do with their new usefulness. (They aren't). It had everything to do with their increased mineral costs coming in. In some cases 400%+. It was a no brainer hit.
Thank god I already cashed out half my stockpile to recover all my initial investment before this blog hit. Holla. Yeah, people were wondering how long it was going to take before the prices return to near mineral value ... i guess now we know there's only a stockpile of 250k+ retrievers out there made at the lower cost.
Yeah unless they were reprosessed shortly after to gain free minerals.....
Hulk is broken I wont bother undocking in one again. To small ore hold compared to outputt. Who in their rigth mind would pay atention to mining.... |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
841
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 14:01:00 -
[70] - Quote
Jens Beckstrom wrote:Rengerel en Distel wrote:Aryth wrote:One thing I want to point out here before it gets lost in the noise. The spike in production of Procurers and Retrievers had basically nothing to do with their new usefulness. (They aren't). It had everything to do with their increased mineral costs coming in. In some cases 400%+. It was a no brainer hit.
Thank god I already cashed out half my stockpile to recover all my initial investment before this blog hit. Holla. Yeah, people were wondering how long it was going to take before the prices return to near mineral value ... i guess now we know there's only a stockpile of 250k+ retrievers out there made at the lower cost. Yeah unless they were reprosessed shortly after to gain free minerals..... Hulk is broken I wont bother undocking in one again. To small ore hold compared to outputt. Who in their rigth mind would pay atention to mining....
The additional materials are all 'extra materials'. You don't get them back on reprocessing. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities.As well as mysql and CSV/XLS conversions of the Static Data Extract. |
|
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
999
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 14:59:00 -
[71] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:The large ore hold may make the Mack the king of ice mining, but not ore mining. But the Mack was the ice mining king before, so whats new? In the case of ore, its a rare high sec roid field where you can aim 2 strips at 2 roids then 24 minutes later return to a full hold. Many roids deplete in a single strip cycle. If you really want to see mineral prices go down, CCP should refactor roid fields to having fewer roids, each with more ore. That way ore can be mined like ice is mined, with little effort.
This is the worst idea I've ever read. Enjoy your idiot penalty.
Mara Tessidar wrote:I forgot to add: congratulations to the economist working for CCP for his smoke and mirrors abilities. The data is clearly selectively taken to show what CCP wants to say, and not what was going on. Yep!
Camios wrote:First: if the mineral volume is increased so much in highsec, I would expect a reduction of lowend ore prices. It's not happening, so what? Is the lowend market going to crash in the next months?
Second: the fact that the most used barge is the one for AFK mining means that mining is just not fun and miners are not mining in order to chil out with friends. This is just a big lie.
This was covered already. The drone regions provided a huge amount of minerals, which allowed demand to grow very, very large. The increase in mining doesn't even come close to providing enough supply. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
disillusional
Tax Evasion IN SPACE
22
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 16:01:00 -
[72] - Quote
Claire Raynor wrote:People Please - I think CCP have fixed some of the things you were talking about.
I dumped my Hulks and started Using Macks. I did this because - Although I have always used a Tank on my ships - i'm in faction warfare - see my other posts - Mining was a pain due to constant trips to the station. It's like constant trips to the toilet on a night out - irritating but necessary. The Mack's mineral hold was an epic gift - it helped make mining FUN - you know?.
A lot of people draw a connection between bigger holds and bots. Well maybe. I feel the negative connection is more likely between a bigger hold and more AFK. But what manifest itself for me was more mining - because I hated leaving my stop to go back to the station all the time. I hated even using Industrials - load them - return - dump - out to fleet - load - return - dump - etc - etc - it - isn't - fun.
Industrials were OK in the olden days - but only for limited amounts of time - I couldn't stand more than an holur of it - The Mack removed this tedium somewhat. But also made the industrial less relevant to mining operations - even a DST isn't big enough - and my Orca isn't really big enough anymore. . .
I want to mine for about 1.5 hours - typically - same as a LvL 4 mission and salvage. I don't like the constant trips to the station from the old mining.
BUT NOW. . . . Now I can use a Freighter!!!! I'm going to swap back to Hulks - really - for Mining Operations. If I'm AFKing one account whilst the others do something else I'll take a Mack. If I'm going to Lo Sec I'll take a Skiff - or I'll try this new mining frigate!
They're are all options now. A new King was crowned with the Mack - but the Hulk IS coming back for gangs. Just a shame we lost a specific Ice Ship. . .
Quoted for truth.
|
Dave stark
Black Nova Corp. R O G U E
764
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 16:39:00 -
[73] - Quote
JamesCLK wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Switch the EHP of the Mackinaw and the Hulk. Problem fixed. More like: 'Band-aid II' applied to sucking chest wound. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go mine. In a Kestrel...
actually, it would be a viable fix. as i pointed out earlier, the mackinaw has the worst of nothing and the hulk has the worst of two "roles" therefore it's a pretty logical change that would also add a certain level of risk to afk mining by making them more vulnerable to people who want to gank afk miners. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
303
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 18:46:00 -
[74] - Quote
These Ice numbers feel a little off... If ice prices are down only %33, then why have I had to mine twice as much? It feels like ice prices are down by 50%-66%...
But that is not the biggest problem. When is CCP going to fix the ore/mineral prices?. You guys have top tier ores that are no longer getting top tier prices. and low tier ores that are getting top tier prices. If you look into things closer, I suspect the rise in high-sec mining is a result of there being greatly reduced incentive for going out to lowsec and 0.0 to make it rich. This is also a slap in the face every time I bring my mining barge out in the wormhole to mine.
i was going to post some specific examples, but my price index site is down for some reason. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
303
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 18:56:00 -
[75] - Quote
Zifrian wrote:Aryth wrote:One thing I want to point out here before it gets lost in the noise. The spike in production of Procurers and Retrievers had basically nothing to do with their new usefulness. (They aren't). It had everything to do with their increased mineral costs coming in. In some cases 400%+. It was a no brainer hit.
Thank god I already cashed out half my stockpile to recover all my initial investment before this blog hit. Holla. That's what I thought as well. That graph isn't very useful but maybe a comparison to total market sales at that time would be helpful to see if it was just market activity The rest of the blog is interesting though. Why no discussion about rebalancing ores? Abcm are no longer top of the chain like they should be (yes they should be because that's how mining was designed).
Quoted For Truth |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
303
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 19:06:00 -
[76] - Quote
corestwo wrote:It's been said, but I'm saying it again.
"Diversity"?
Really?
What we're seeing is not diversity but a 1:1 or greater replacement of hulks with mackinaws. Over time I expect hulk usage will decrease, in fact!
From the blog you seem to almost get it, if the afk mining comments are any indication, but I figure I'll spell it out.
Mining is boring.
Because mining is boring, players always gravitate to the best isk:effort ratio.
Previously to the revamps, the best ratio was the hulk, because all the ships were the same, just lower or higher yield. Therefore, the hulk was king.
Now the mackinaw is a thing. You can get like 90% of the volume for a fraction of the effort - the mackinaw unloads its cargo every twenty-ish minutes, while the hulk is every three. Sixfold drop in effort for a 10% drop in yield is a no-brainer, and the better tank is like a cherry on top.
In short, ya'll screwed up. Lately you've been, for better or worse, pretty good about addressing your screw ups. How about another look at this one?
E: I like the focus on mineral prices from August onward only. Nicely ignores the fact that pyerite, trit and isogen have all taken huge leaps earlier in the year thanks to other mistakes you've made becoming apparent.
Hey, careful there. I don't want you giving any wrong ideas to CCP... Mining is boring, but that is the way it is supposed to be. If they introduce new mouse clicks for the sake of giving us something to do, I will be royally pissed. People are taking the AFK mackinaw option because they want to, and not, specifically, because mining is boring. Please do not fix "mining is boring" with "more clicks to get mining done"... I do not need tedium to be added to boring, thank you. That would be one way to end my many years-long career as a miner. |
James Amril-Kesh
RAZOR Alliance
1438
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 19:09:00 -
[77] - Quote
Maul555 wrote:corestwo wrote:It's been said, but I'm saying it again.
"Diversity"?
Really?
What we're seeing is not diversity but a 1:1 or greater replacement of hulks with mackinaws. Over time I expect hulk usage will decrease, in fact!
From the blog you seem to almost get it, if the afk mining comments are any indication, but I figure I'll spell it out.
Mining is boring.
Because mining is boring, players always gravitate to the best isk:effort ratio.
Previously to the revamps, the best ratio was the hulk, because all the ships were the same, just lower or higher yield. Therefore, the hulk was king.
Now the mackinaw is a thing. You can get like 90% of the volume for a fraction of the effort - the mackinaw unloads its cargo every twenty-ish minutes, while the hulk is every three. Sixfold drop in effort for a 10% drop in yield is a no-brainer, and the better tank is like a cherry on top.
In short, ya'll screwed up. Lately you've been, for better or worse, pretty good about addressing your screw ups. How about another look at this one?
E: I like the focus on mineral prices from August onward only. Nicely ignores the fact that pyerite, trit and isogen have all taken huge leaps earlier in the year thanks to other mistakes you've made becoming apparent. Hey, careful there. I don't want you giving any wrong ideas to CCP... Mining is boring, but that is the way it is supposed to be. If they introduce new mouse clicks for the sake of giving us something to do, I will be royally pissed. People are taking the AFK mackinaw option because they want to, and not, specifically, because mining is boring. Please do not fix "mining is boring" with "more clicks to get mining done"... I do not need tedium to be added to boring, thank you. That would be one way to end my many years-long career as a miner. Or you could just give the easiest exhumer the weakest tank, so that miners will have a choice of easy tank, convenience of ore capacity, or high yield, instead of having an extremely favorable combination centered on a single ship. -áObjects in mirror are redder than they appear. |
Dave stark
Black Nova Corp. R O G U E
765
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 19:18:00 -
[78] - Quote
Maul555 wrote:corestwo wrote:It's been said, but I'm saying it again.
"Diversity"?
Really?
What we're seeing is not diversity but a 1:1 or greater replacement of hulks with mackinaws. Over time I expect hulk usage will decrease, in fact!
From the blog you seem to almost get it, if the afk mining comments are any indication, but I figure I'll spell it out.
Mining is boring.
Because mining is boring, players always gravitate to the best isk:effort ratio.
Previously to the revamps, the best ratio was the hulk, because all the ships were the same, just lower or higher yield. Therefore, the hulk was king.
Now the mackinaw is a thing. You can get like 90% of the volume for a fraction of the effort - the mackinaw unloads its cargo every twenty-ish minutes, while the hulk is every three. Sixfold drop in effort for a 10% drop in yield is a no-brainer, and the better tank is like a cherry on top.
In short, ya'll screwed up. Lately you've been, for better or worse, pretty good about addressing your screw ups. How about another look at this one?
E: I like the focus on mineral prices from August onward only. Nicely ignores the fact that pyerite, trit and isogen have all taken huge leaps earlier in the year thanks to other mistakes you've made becoming apparent. Hey, careful there. I don't want you giving any wrong ideas to CCP... Mining is boring, but that is the way it is supposed to be. If they introduce new mouse clicks for the sake of giving us something to do, I will be royally pissed. People are taking the AFK mackinaw option because they want to, and not, specifically, because mining is boring. Please do not fix "mining is boring" with "more clicks to get mining done"... I do not need tedium to be added to boring, thank you. That would be one way to end my many years-long career as a miner.
confirming i afk in a mackinaw because mining is dull as **** and i'd rather be watching dexter while getting free isk. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
303
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 19:39:00 -
[79] - Quote
Haifisch Zahne wrote:So, let me see if I can summarize without all the CCP Hype/FUD:
3) ***All*** gains in mining use is in high sec with afk mining ships, notably the Retriever and its big brother (wait, wasn't CCP trying to put an end to this kind of botting?)
CCP was going after automated botters. People using programs, and even fake clients, to completely automate the mining process. In essence, computers posing as actual players. There was never any intention to eliminate AFK mining by real players.
|
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
1000
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 21:07:00 -
[80] - Quote
Maul555 wrote:corestwo wrote:It's been said, but I'm saying it again.
"Diversity"?
Really?
What we're seeing is not diversity but a 1:1 or greater replacement of hulks with mackinaws. Over time I expect hulk usage will decrease, in fact!
From the blog you seem to almost get it, if the afk mining comments are any indication, but I figure I'll spell it out.
Mining is boring.
Because mining is boring, players always gravitate to the best isk:effort ratio.
Previously to the revamps, the best ratio was the hulk, because all the ships were the same, just lower or higher yield. Therefore, the hulk was king.
Now the mackinaw is a thing. You can get like 90% of the volume for a fraction of the effort - the mackinaw unloads its cargo every twenty-ish minutes, while the hulk is every three. Sixfold drop in effort for a 10% drop in yield is a no-brainer, and the better tank is like a cherry on top.
In short, ya'll screwed up. Lately you've been, for better or worse, pretty good about addressing your screw ups. How about another look at this one?
E: I like the focus on mineral prices from August onward only. Nicely ignores the fact that pyerite, trit and isogen have all taken huge leaps earlier in the year thanks to other mistakes you've made becoming apparent. Hey, careful there. I don't want you giving any wrong ideas to CCP... Mining is boring, but that is the way it is supposed to be. If they introduce new mouse clicks for the sake of giving us something to do, I will be royally pissed. People are taking the AFK mackinaw option because they want to, and not, specifically, because mining is boring. Please do not fix "mining is boring" with "more clicks to get mining done"... I do not need tedium to be added to boring, thank you. That would be one way to end my many years-long career as a miner.
Fine. It's been demonstrated and agreed upon that isk per effort, not isk per hour, is not what miners actually value. I'm glad you confirm this. In light of that fact, the point that the mackinaw is "broken" in that it offers six times the isk:effort ratio of the Hulk and a significantly better tank, and CCP needs to re-tweak the barges to account for isk:effort, not isk:hour, being the preferred metric. Would you agree?
If so, why not?
Additionally, if you could play an interesting minigame, that required much more attention (something more in line with what mission running requires, for example) but boosted your yield by some acceptably high degree, would you do it? This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
|
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
302
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 22:19:00 -
[81] - Quote
I think that the easiest fix for the Mack vs Hulk problem is simply to remove the "2 strips/harvesters are as good as 3" bonus on the Mack/Retriever (as well as removing the "1 is as good as 3" bonus on the Skiff/Proc). This would restore the Hulk/Covetor as the top mining ships, for efficiency, yet still keep the Mack/Retriever as the choice for AFK miners, who are willing to trade efficiency for the larger cargohold.
For the Skiff/Proc, I'd like to see weapon hardpoints added. These ships have the tank, so lets give them more gank - and turn them into true combat miners. At the very least, we'd get entertainment value at seeing these ships used in bizarre PVP scenarios.
Note: Yes, kids, AFK mining will never go away. Before the change from standard cargoholds to ore-specific cargoholds, AFK miners fit barges/exhumers for max cargo, while non-AFK miners fit for max efficiency. And, even if you gimp the mining ships by removing their cargoholds completely, AFK miners will use haulers with mining lasers and Orcas with drones. |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
303
|
Posted - 2012.12.08 02:20:00 -
[82] - Quote
corestwo wrote:Maul555 wrote:corestwo wrote:It's been said, but I'm saying it again.
"Diversity"?
Really?
What we're seeing is not diversity but a 1:1 or greater replacement of hulks with mackinaws. Over time I expect hulk usage will decrease, in fact!
From the blog you seem to almost get it, if the afk mining comments are any indication, but I figure I'll spell it out.
Mining is boring.
Because mining is boring, players always gravitate to the best isk:effort ratio.
Previously to the revamps, the best ratio was the hulk, because all the ships were the same, just lower or higher yield. Therefore, the hulk was king.
Now the mackinaw is a thing. You can get like 90% of the volume for a fraction of the effort - the mackinaw unloads its cargo every twenty-ish minutes, while the hulk is every three. Sixfold drop in effort for a 10% drop in yield is a no-brainer, and the better tank is like a cherry on top.
In short, ya'll screwed up. Lately you've been, for better or worse, pretty good about addressing your screw ups. How about another look at this one?
E: I like the focus on mineral prices from August onward only. Nicely ignores the fact that pyerite, trit and isogen have all taken huge leaps earlier in the year thanks to other mistakes you've made becoming apparent. Hey, careful there. I don't want you giving any wrong ideas to CCP... Mining is boring, but that is the way it is supposed to be. If they introduce new mouse clicks for the sake of giving us something to do, I will be royally pissed. People are taking the AFK mackinaw option because they want to, and not, specifically, because mining is boring. Please do not fix "mining is boring" with "more clicks to get mining done"... I do not need tedium to be added to boring, thank you. That would be one way to end my many years-long career as a miner. Fine. It's been demonstrated and agreed upon that isk per effort, not isk per hour, is not what miners actually value. I'm glad you confirm this. In light of that fact, the point that the mackinaw is "broken" in that it offers six times the isk:effort ratio of the Hulk and a significantly better tank, and CCP needs to re-tweak the barges to account for isk:effort, not isk:hour, being the preferred metric. Would you agree? If so, why not? Additionally, if you could play an interesting minigame, that required much more attention (something more in line with what mission running requires, for example) but boosted your yield by some acceptably high degree, would you do it?
I agree with you. But I have 2 main mining moods, and different ships for them.
1: Isk:effort ratio. The main reason I mine a lot is because it has a low isk:effort ratio. I could obviously make much more isk running missions or doing incursions, but I choose not to because I often just have eve open all day in the background while I get other **** done. This makes mining a preferred profession for obvious resons.
2: Isk/crunch time. The other mode is get the isk now. I have excellent mining skills, and will often switch from ice mining in a mack to doing a couple of frenzied days with my hulk, and will usually bring another toon to the party. For this, the hulk, no matter how much effort, is the game plan. Now that is with 3 characters, and I am already multiboxing + multitasking other stuff. Any mini-game would not get used most likely. If it became mandatory to play a stupid mini-game, then mining becomes too much hassle for either scenario. |
raskonalkov
Tie Fighters Inc
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.08 03:37:00 -
[83] - Quote
I am gonna need a mackinaw with a bigger hold to put all the sad people in this thread into, so I can carry them to a happier place. |
Balder Verdandi
Czerka. The Aslyum
80
|
Posted - 2012.12.08 07:47:00 -
[84] - Quote
corestwo wrote:Fine. It's been demonstrated and agreed upon that isk per effort, not isk per hour, is not what miners actually value. I'm glad you confirm this. In light of that fact, the point that the mackinaw is "broken" in that it offers six times the isk:effort ratio of the Hulk and a significantly better tank, and CCP needs to re-tweak the barges to account for isk:effort, not isk:hour, being the preferred metric. Would you agree?
If so, why not?
Additionally, if you could play an interesting minigame, that required much more attention (something more in line with what mission running requires, for example) but boosted your yield by some acceptably high degree, would you do it?
You cannot really use a ratio for "isk:effort" when including AFK mining because effort will almost equal zero. Correct?
Now, a ratio of "isk:hour" is more feasible since "bot-mining" isn't supposed to happen (yeah, right ... I see no fix for this) and it includes AFK mining, but needs to focus more on mining ops whether they take place in high-sec or null.
If there were more realistic bonus/role allowances to graduate from the Procurer to Retriever to Covetor, and the Skiff to Mack, or Hulk (think specialty here; Skiff is Mercoxit, Mack is ice, and Hulk is ore) then I could see the changes. The nerf to the Hulk simply doesn't make sense because it doesn't fall in line with other ship balancing. To be fair, the Hulk is actually worse than it's T1 cousin, the Covetor.
As for a boosted yield/minigame idea .... why not change the role/bonus with something that works like "Exhumer bonus of +7.5% yield per cycle per level while in a boosted fleet of 6 ships or more"?
I don't stab people in the back. -áWhen you do, you miss the look on their face and that's priceless.
Long live the failure known as "Unified Inventory"! |
Dave stark
Black Nova Corp. R O G U E
765
|
Posted - 2012.12.08 09:35:00 -
[85] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote:As for a boosted yield/minigame idea .... why not change the role/bonus with something that works like "Exhumer bonus of +7.5% yield per cycle per level while in a boosted fleet of 6 ships or more"?
because that just makes the hulk even worse. i would have even less reason to own a hulk if that were the case than i have to own it now, and i have a hard time justifying undocking it now.
if it was only while in a fleet (regardless of size) then sure, it might be a viable bonus. however forcing the fleet to be so large would be a mistake. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Ryder Lenberg
Lenberg Mining
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.08 11:28:00 -
[86] - Quote
i am a miner, and i Like it, BUT i Royaly HATE AFK Miners, and macro miners. CCP Should do something that makes people pay a bit more attention on some asspects like, adding attention to making beam adjustments, energy checks and similar, thus IF you Dont keep it in check, the lasers WILL turn off etc. But if you keep it on check, you gain a bit better Yield. |
Dave stark
Black Nova Corp. R O G U E
766
|
Posted - 2012.12.08 11:44:00 -
[87] - Quote
Ryder Lenberg wrote:i am a miner, and i Like it, BUT i Royaly HATE AFK Miners, and macro miners. CCP Should do something that makes people pay a bit more attention on some asspects like, adding attention to making beam adjustments, energy checks and similar, thus IF you Dont keep it in check, the lasers WILL turn off etc. But if you keep it on check, you gain a bit better Yield.
you clearly only have one account, don't you? Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Balder Verdandi
Czerka. The Aslyum
80
|
Posted - 2012.12.08 12:46:00 -
[88] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Balder Verdandi wrote:As for a boosted yield/minigame idea .... why not change the role/bonus with something that works like "Exhumer bonus of +7.5% yield per cycle per level while in a boosted fleet of 6 ships or more"?
because that just makes the hulk even worse. i would have even less reason to own a hulk if that were the case than i have to own it now, and i have a hard time justifying undocking it now. if it was only while in a fleet (regardless of size) then sure, it might be a viable bonus. however forcing the fleet to be so large would be a mistake.
CCP's idea was to push the Hulk into fleet ops, right?
I'm fine with that, but what I should have said is if they wanted to do that then they should have provided a specialty bonus for being in a fleet ... I was just using "6" as an example. Honestly any number would work, but as of now it's the only T2 exhumer without a dedicated specialty (think Skiff/Mercoxit and Mack/Ice).
I definitely agree it's not worth undocking in a Hulk anymore, boosted fleet or not. CCP went overboard with their nerf, and I think that the two thirds idea (Procurer mines 2/3 of the Retty, which mines 2/3 of the Covetor .... with maxed skills) would be better served. Right now there should be an incentive to mine in a Hulk, and there is none. I don't stab people in the back. -áWhen you do, you miss the look on their face and that's priceless.
Long live the failure known as "Unified Inventory"! |
Dave stark
Black Nova Corp. R O G U E
766
|
Posted - 2012.12.08 13:04:00 -
[89] - Quote
Balder Verdandi wrote:Dave stark wrote:Balder Verdandi wrote:As for a boosted yield/minigame idea .... why not change the role/bonus with something that works like "Exhumer bonus of +7.5% yield per cycle per level while in a boosted fleet of 6 ships or more"?
because that just makes the hulk even worse. i would have even less reason to own a hulk if that were the case than i have to own it now, and i have a hard time justifying undocking it now. if it was only while in a fleet (regardless of size) then sure, it might be a viable bonus. however forcing the fleet to be so large would be a mistake. CCP's idea was to push the Hulk into fleet ops, right? I'm fine with that, but what I should have said is if they wanted to do that then they should have provided a specialty bonus for being in a fleet ... I was just using "6" as an example. Honestly any number would work, but as of now it's the only T2 exhumer without a dedicated specialty (think Skiff/Mercoxit and Mack/Ice). I definitely agree it's not worth undocking in a Hulk anymore, boosted fleet or not. CCP went overboard with their nerf, and I think that the two thirds idea (Procurer mines 2/3 of the Retty, which mines 2/3 of the Covetor .... with maxed skills) would be better served. Right now there should be an incentive to mine in a Hulk, and there is none.
ccp's idea was to give every ship a niche. they failed. it's that simple. the mackinaw has ample yield, and tank, and top class cargo capacity. that's not a niche that's just crowning a new king, the exact thing they wanted to get away from. they were told what would happen, the graphs proved it, and they just looked at it and decided to slap each other on the ass and high five each other as the point sailed over their head.
the hulk doesn't even need to be a "fleet only" ship, it just needs to not suck at everything but yield in order to be viable. doesn't matter if it has an extra yield bonus if there's A) nowhere to put the ore, B) not enough room to store crystals to get the most out of these bonuses, C) enough tank to last long enough to warp it out of a belt when rats warp in, or for other ships to deal with them. etc.
the simple fact is that it's let down so badly by every other aspect that it doesn't excel in that you can't use it for it's intended function. it's like owning a car with no wheels and a petrol cap glued shut. sure it might have an engine capable of doing 250mph but you'll never use it because it's got no wheels and you can't fill it with petrol. it's effectively a museum exhibit, which is what's happened to the hulk. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Balder Verdandi
Czerka. The Aslyum
80
|
Posted - 2012.12.08 14:40:00 -
[90] - Quote
I totally agree .......
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2284743#post2284743
I don't stab people in the back. -áWhen you do, you miss the look on their face and that's priceless.
Long live the failure known as "Unified Inventory"! |
|
Ryder Lenberg
Lenberg Mining
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.08 17:41:00 -
[91] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Ryder Lenberg wrote:i am a miner, and i Like it, BUT i Royaly HATE AFK Miners, and macro miners. CCP Should do something that makes people pay a bit more attention on some asspects like, adding attention to making beam adjustments, energy checks and similar, thus IF you Dont keep it in check, the lasers WILL turn off etc. But if you keep it on check, you gain a bit better Yield. you clearly only have one account, don't you?
i have more than 2 accounts |
Darth Gustav
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
1829
|
Posted - 2012.12.08 17:56:00 -
[92] - Quote
Way to go CCP! Cheer yourselves on for completely devaluing the ice mining profession.
Extrapolate from your precocious graphs. What does the value of ice look like in a year? How about two?
CCP, these changes were absolutely terrible but you've managed to sell yourselves on them hook, line, and sinker.
Just awful. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
Dave stark
Black Nova Corp. R O G U E
774
|
Posted - 2012.12.08 19:36:00 -
[93] - Quote
Ryder Lenberg wrote:Dave stark wrote:Ryder Lenberg wrote:i am a miner, and i Like it, BUT i Royaly HATE AFK Miners, and macro miners. CCP Should do something that makes people pay a bit more attention on some asspects like, adding attention to making beam adjustments, energy checks and similar, thus IF you Dont keep it in check, the lasers WILL turn off etc. But if you keep it on check, you gain a bit better Yield. you clearly only have one account, don't you? i have more than 2 accounts
then you're the octopus man?
i fail to see how you would benefit from your mining lasers turning off on every other account because you're messing around with some mining mini game on one account that the other miners stop mining. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Ryder Lenberg
Lenberg Mining
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.08 20:00:00 -
[94] - Quote
Planing is the key son |
Dave stark
Black Nova Corp. R O G U E
774
|
Posted - 2012.12.08 20:10:00 -
[95] - Quote
Ryder Lenberg wrote:Planing is the key son
still doesn't change the fact that you can't play the mini-game on several accounts at once unless you are some kind of freak with 8 arms and/or have mining lasers going inactive. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5734
|
Posted - 2012.12.08 20:20:00 -
[96] - Quote
tl;dr: "we made the hulk and skiff irrelevant and we all but legalized macromining, hi5 devs" ~*a proud belligerent undesirable*~ TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. An idea for improving corp management |
Mocam
EVE University Ivy League
184
|
Posted - 2012.12.09 11:51:00 -
[97] - Quote
Freezehunter wrote:Maybe I don't understand macroeconomics, but if people have been mining so damn much compared to the past, how come **** is like 40%-60% more expensive than I remember it 2 years ago if there is such an ore surplus in the system?
Shouldn't prices be going DOWN with all these miners?
What I've been curious about is the COMPOSITE effect of certain changes.
Removal of Drone drops in the Drone Region (which was 'competition' for mined ores) -- *WITH* the new minng barges -- *AND* what economic effect replacing mineral drops with bounties had.
Drone Regions produced huge amounts of minerals. These charts simply show mining barge information but is it going in excess of what was gained or still in a deficit from it. Then the increased cash flow from bounties...
- Mining = wealth transfer/sink - as you convert to minerals then sell on market, fees are involved so some isk comes out of the game. No "free wealth" - the isk exists already in the game to go to the miners.
- Bounties = faucet - so isk is pouring in from a sizable area that had very little with respect to isk faucet income.
I've seen a lot of blame on inflation laid at the door of the miners yet the above composite changes aren't discussed.
I just wonder, are minerals still down from those days or actually up, as these charts show. And what effect has the bounties being put in had on the overall economy?
The influx from that faucet could explain a lot of extra isk on the market. If it's also combined with lowered mineral availability due to removal from the Drone Regions... That could explain why prices aren't bottoming out due to mass production. |
Darth Gustav
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
1833
|
Posted - 2012.12.09 17:53:00 -
[98] - Quote
Mocam wrote:Freezehunter wrote:Maybe I don't understand macroeconomics, but if people have been mining so damn much compared to the past, how come **** is like 40%-60% more expensive than I remember it 2 years ago if there is such an ore surplus in the system?
Shouldn't prices be going DOWN with all these miners? What I've been curious about is the COMPOSITE effect of certain changes. Removal of Drone drops in the Drone Region (which was 'competition' for mined ores) -- *WITH* the new minng barges -- *AND* what economic effect replacing mineral drops with bounties had. Drone Regions produced huge amounts of minerals. These charts simply show mining barge information but is it going in excess of what was gained or still in a deficit from it. Then the increased cash flow from bounties... - Mining = wealth transfer/sink - as you convert to minerals then sell on market, fees are involved so some isk comes out of the game. No "free wealth" - the isk exists already in the game to go to the miners.
- Bounties = faucet - so isk is pouring in from a sizable area that had very little with respect to isk faucet income.
I've seen a lot of blame on inflation laid at the door of the miners yet the above composite changes aren't discussed. I just wonder, are minerals still down from those days or actually up, as these charts show. And what effect has the bounties being put in had on the overall economy? The influx from that faucet could explain a lot of extra isk on the market. If it's also combined with lowered mineral availability due to removal from the Drone Regions... That could explain why prices aren't bottoming out due to mass production. All your composites amount to nothing.
If the miners who mine AFK suckling the teat of undepletable ice just mined mineral rocks, there would be a DEFLATION problem rather than an INFLATION problem. Ice has plummeted while tritanium has spiked. That's because miners are taking the path of least resistance to wealth - even at the expense of the future value of the commodities they refuse to lay off.
I get it now! Resounding success CCP and AFK ice miners!
But only if your intent is to grief potential future ice miners.
Don't you think there are players who signed up today who might want to train ice mining in the future and expect some modicum of profit from it when they do? He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
2210
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 00:03:00 -
[99] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:That's a big part of the problem, there's just not enough difference between the Hulk/Covetor and the Mack/Retriever. The Hulk and Covetors need about another 5-10% yield/hr over the Mack/Retty in order for them to be preferred for at-the-keyboard mining.
Then there's the whole issue that the preferred mining pair is now a hulk+mack where the mack acts as the hauler for the mini-fleet. The T1 industrial ships can't haul that much, and the Orca's 50k m3 ore bay is now pretty much a joke (that needs to be boosted up into the 400-600k m3 range).
Sadly, doing what you say is correct but would bring immediately back the issue CCP tried to address. Small cargo = exponential botting and putting Hulk back to the top would lead to rampant botting again. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
2211
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 00:18:00 -
[100] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Pre Inferno Players: "CCP these mining barge changes are a bad idea, Mackinaw is too good seeing as it has good enough tank to avoid getting ganked meaning only the most paranoid will ever use the Skiff, the biggest ore bay, and enough yield that it's still very competitive against the Hulk for considerably less effort." CCP: "But teiricide! Roles! Ganking was never meant to be profitable!"
Post Inferno: Players: "Look CCP, all we see now are Mackinaws everywhere, Hulks are used FAR less than they were before and Mackinaws got a disproportionally large boost. Two Mackinaws get better yield than a Hulk + Orca with full fleet boosts, and even players in large mining fleets mine in Mackinaws often for convenience." CCP: *silence*
Post Retribution: CCP: "Look, players! We've evaluated the mining barge changes, and we've made this pretty graph that confirms what you said about the Mackinaw. Not only that, but we've shown that this barge change has had no significant effect on mining anywhere outside of highsec. We like the way this turned out!" Players: "WTF, how could you possibly look at that data and say you're HAPPY with these changes?"
Switch the EHP of the Mackinaw and the Hulk. Problem fixed.
No, the problem will be fixed when mining will stop being a soul-crushing, boring, "AFK-it-if-you-wish-to-preserve-sanity" (in)activity. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
James Amril-Kesh
RAZOR Alliance
1447
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 00:23:00 -
[101] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Pre Inferno Players: "CCP these mining barge changes are a bad idea, Mackinaw is too good seeing as it has good enough tank to avoid getting ganked meaning only the most paranoid will ever use the Skiff, the biggest ore bay, and enough yield that it's still very competitive against the Hulk for considerably less effort." CCP: "But teiricide! Roles! Ganking was never meant to be profitable!"
Post Inferno: Players: "Look CCP, all we see now are Mackinaws everywhere, Hulks are used FAR less than they were before and Mackinaws got a disproportionally large boost. Two Mackinaws get better yield than a Hulk + Orca with full fleet boosts, and even players in large mining fleets mine in Mackinaws often for convenience." CCP: *silence*
Post Retribution: CCP: "Look, players! We've evaluated the mining barge changes, and we've made this pretty graph that confirms what you said about the Mackinaw. Not only that, but we've shown that this barge change has had no significant effect on mining anywhere outside of highsec. We like the way this turned out!" Players: "WTF, how could you possibly look at that data and say you're HAPPY with these changes?"
Switch the EHP of the Mackinaw and the Hulk. Problem fixed. No, the problem will be fixed when mining will stop being a soul-crushing, boring, "AFK-it-if-you-wish-to-preserve-sanity" (in)activity. Gee, it's almost as if there wasn't anything to break up that monotony. Like, say, suicide ganks? -áObjects in mirror are redder than they appear. |
Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
367
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 00:24:00 -
[102] - Quote
Mocam wrote:Freezehunter wrote:Maybe I don't understand macroeconomics, but if people have been mining so damn much compared to the past, how come **** is like 40%-60% more expensive than I remember it 2 years ago if there is such an ore surplus in the system?
Shouldn't prices be going DOWN with all these miners? What I've been curious about is the COMPOSITE effect of certain changes. Removal of Drone drops in the Drone Region (which was 'competition' for mined ores) -- *WITH* the new minng barges -- *AND* what economic effect replacing mineral drops with bounties had. Drone Regions produced huge amounts of minerals. These charts simply show mining barge information but is it going in excess of what was gained or still in a deficit from it. Then the increased cash flow from bounties... - Mining = wealth transfer/sink - as you convert to minerals then sell on market, fees are involved so some isk comes out of the game. No "free wealth" - the isk exists already in the game to go to the miners.
- Bounties = faucet - so isk is pouring in from a sizable area that had very little with respect to isk faucet income.
I've seen a lot of blame on inflation laid at the door of the miners yet the above composite changes aren't discussed. I just wonder, are minerals still down from those days or actually up, as these charts show. And what effect has the bounties being put in had on the overall economy? The influx from that faucet could explain a lot of extra isk on the market. If it's also combined with lowered mineral availability due to removal from the Drone Regions... That could explain why prices aren't bottoming out due to mass production. These are interesting topics for discussion, but we haven't seen that kind of self-reflecting analysis out of CCP since prior to the Tyrannis expansion. CCP has gone silent on any and all game design elements which might be seen as a weakness in their catalog of expansions. And thus all of the insanely dramatic ISK faucets and sinks put into play are barely touched upon from an economic impact perspective.
I don't know if it is a cultural (Icelandic) thing, business management decision or simply lack of available resources to discuss all of the economic changes that have taken place in EVE over the past 1 - 2 years, but it is a sure bet that CCP's customers are discussing them. +++++++ I have never shed a tear for a fellow EVE player until now. Mark GÇ£SeleeneGÇ¥ Heard's Blog Honoring Sean "Vile Rat" Smith. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
2211
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 00:28:00 -
[103] - Quote
Mocam wrote:What I've been curious about is the COMPOSITE effect of certain changes. Removal of Drone drops in the Drone Region (which was 'competition' for mined ores) -- *WITH* the new minng barges -- *AND* what economic effect replacing mineral drops with bounties had. Drone Regions produced huge amounts of minerals. These charts simply show mining barge information but is it going in excess of what was gained or still in a deficit from it. Then the increased cash flow from bounties... - Mining = wealth transfer/sink - as you convert to minerals then sell on market, fees are involved so some isk comes out of the game. No "free wealth" - the isk exists already in the game to go to the miners.
- Bounties = faucet - so isk is pouring in from a sizable area that had very little with respect to isk faucet income.
I've seen a lot of blame on inflation laid at the door of the miners yet the above composite changes aren't discussed. I just wonder, are minerals still down from those days or actually up, as these charts show. And what effect has the bounties being put in had on the overall economy? The influx from that faucet could explain a lot of extra isk on the market. If it's also combined with lowered mineral availability due to removal from the Drone Regions... That could explain why prices aren't bottoming out due to mass production.
There's no need for complex or composite effects at all.
1) Miners use Macks for total AFK 2) Roids depletion require human intervention every 2 minutes and moving to a new belt every 2 hours. Ice require human intervention every 40 minutes, no move.
Guess which of the two activities they are going to do? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
2211
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 00:30:00 -
[104] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: No, the problem will be fixed when mining will stop being a soul-crushing, boring, "AFK-it-if-you-wish-to-preserve-sanity" (in)activity.
Gee, it's almost as if there wasn't anything to break up that monotony. Like, say, suicide ganks?[/quote]
At the peak of Goonswarm sponsored Hulkageddon, in the deadliest day of all, they "did" the ice system where I was twice in 24 hours. It's still about 20 hours of pure boredom. Imagine the rest of the year. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
2211
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 00:34:00 -
[105] - Quote
Hakaru Ishiwara wrote:The influx from that faucet could explain a lot of extra isk on the market. If it's also combined with lowered mineral availability due to removal from the Drone Regions... That could explain why prices aren't bottoming out due to mass production. These are interesting topics for discussion, but we haven't seen that kind of self-reflecting analysis out of CCP since prior to the Tyrannis expansion. CCP has gone silent on any and all game design elements which might be seen as a weakness in their catalog of expansions. And thus all of the insanely dramatic ISK faucets and sinks put into play are barely touched upon from an economic impact perspective.
I don't know if it is a cultural (Icelandic) thing, business management decision or simply lack of available resources to discuss all of the economic changes that have taken place in EVE over the past 1 - 2 years, but it is a sure bet that CCP's customers are discussing them.[/quote]
CCP used to publish a QEN, a PDF showing all sorts of tasty charts and data about EvE stats and economy. Then they stopped as people started to notice the grand mistakes being done and their effects on the economy.
I can almost see Dr. Ejyo swearing while the game designers completely ignore his suggestions and proceed with their AWESOME redesigns anyway - and actually reduced his team (CCP Diagoras is no more). Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
1004
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 07:52:00 -
[106] - Quote
Mocam wrote:Freezehunter wrote:Maybe I don't understand macroeconomics, but if people have been mining so damn much compared to the past, how come **** is like 40%-60% more expensive than I remember it 2 years ago if there is such an ore surplus in the system?
Shouldn't prices be going DOWN with all these miners? What I've been curious about is the COMPOSITE effect of certain changes. Removal of Drone drops in the Drone Region (which was 'competition' for mined ores) -- *WITH* the new minng barges -- *AND* what economic effect replacing mineral drops with bounties had. Drone Regions produced huge amounts of minerals. These charts simply show mining barge information but is it going in excess of what was gained or still in a deficit from it. Then the increased cash flow from bounties... - Mining = wealth transfer/sink - as you convert to minerals then sell on market, fees are involved so some isk comes out of the game. No "free wealth" - the isk exists already in the game to go to the miners.
- Bounties = faucet - so isk is pouring in from a sizable area that had very little with respect to isk faucet income.
I've seen a lot of blame on inflation laid at the door of the miners yet the above composite changes aren't discussed. I just wonder, are minerals still down from those days or actually up, as these charts show. And what effect has the bounties being put in had on the overall economy? The influx from that faucet could explain a lot of extra isk on the market. If it's also combined with lowered mineral availability due to removal from the Drone Regions... That could explain why prices aren't bottoming out due to mass production.
Economy's already running at something like a 25T/mo net faucet, another trillion or so (or more likely less, frankly) from the drone regions isn't a big deal. But easily accessible and large scale isk transfers such as mining (or FW before it) takes isk that, yes, exists already in the game but may have been stagnant, and transfers it to the miners, where they spend it on things, including game time. FW before it, same effect, just different vector.
Drone drops from the drone regions were a massive supply of minerals that is no longer there, they allowed the game to enjoy a much higher level of demand than it would have otherwise been able to, and now that demand is being applied to a much smaller supply. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Dave stark
Black Nova Corp. R O G U E
787
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 08:10:00 -
[107] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:No, the problem will be fixed when mining will stop being a soul-crushing, boring, "AFK-it-if-you-wish-to-preserve-sanity" (in)activity.
from a personal standpoint, i'm going to say you're absolutely wrong. when i have to be constantly watching my screen, i ain't going to be doing it for 20m/hour mining, i'll be something else, because almost any other activity nets more isk/hour. i only accept the low payout from mining because i can do it while doing other things, such as watching tv, writing, reading random internet crap, talking to friends on steam, etc.
there's no way in hell i'd continue to mine if i had to be constantly watching my screen, the payout isn't worth it. to confound this, how would people with multiple mining accounts manage to monitor all 4+ accounts that they have? hell, one of the reasons i use an orca even with my 2 account setup is that i only have to tab to 1 screen to move ore, if i had more then i'd suck it up and tab to 2-3 other screens. however if i had to constantly be watching all of them at the same time... it simply wouldn't work and multibox mining would mean a lot of inactive accounts and sold mining characters.
honestly, making mining "active" has been suggested many times and it simply isn't the solution, especially when mining's payout is so low and it will massively hurt multi-account miners. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Inquisitor Kitchner
Galaxy Punks Executive Outcomes
593
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 11:00:00 -
[108] - Quote
I don't often unironically take a dig at CCP as I think you guys do a great job and you engage with the community more then literally any other game developer ever. Properly engage too, not just reply to tweets with one word comments on a leaked screenshot, actually making changes based on opinions.
That said this devblog is total rubbish. The links between cause and effect of any of the figures used are not what the blog says they are, or at least there's no evidence to prove it is what they say they are.
Let's look at the points:
Quote:The mining barge changes, however, caused a gigantic spike in the production of the smaller vessels. The average monthly number of Retrievers produced in the first half of the year was 13,600 ships....Manufacturing figures for the Procurer are even more dramatic, as its average monthly figure of nearly 2,000 ships was exceeded by 4781% in August and by 9706% in September.
Considering these are the earliest mining ships people can just into I wouldn't put too much on these figures. Firstly they are effected by changes in production cost (I believe) and secondly if the changes were to make mining a better option for income on an alt people will be looking to buy these.
Interesting the ship that is high yield and low hold (i.e. the ship designed to be used for "team" mining) is the one that dropped off in terms of production...
Quote:Manufacturing of exhumers shows a similar pattern, albeit at a much smaller scale.
If by "similar pattern" you mean that Mackinaws (high cargo hold, "low" tank) now form a much high percentage oh ships produced then yes you are right. Unfortunately that's not the point you were making.
What the figures actually show is mining ship production has dropped off (implying that either demand isn't as great, or the spike pre-changes is enough to satisfy demand for quite a while) BUT Mackinaws now form a disproportionate percentage of mining ships produced, in fact if you look at the graph they form a pretty similar percentage as hulks did when "everyone only ever used hulks" which was the "cause" for the change.
This would imply that Mackinaws and Procurers are the new used ships of choice (as otherwise why bother including the figures for ships produced?). If only we had those figures! Oh wait, we do...
Quote:The new versions of the ships clearly provide useful mining alternatives to pilots willing to trade off some mining output for a reduced risk of suicide ganks or less workload shoveling ore to a jet can.
This statement is just wrong.
Firstly the graphs don't imply anything about useful mining alternatives. they shows that the two ships that now show overwhelming use are the two ships that allow for the "best" AFK mining. The retriever far outstrips (no pun intended) it's brothers in terms of mining barges and the Mackinaw has overtaken the Hulk in terms of useage for miners. Now the decline in useage of Hulks is not as steep as the mining barge decline, and Mackinaws have not yet hit the disparity of useage that Hulks once had, however exhumers are much more of a significant investment for miners, so no-one is going to be in a rush to sell off their old hulks.
Further this has been measured over just 3 months, I suspect the delta between Mackinaw and Hulk usage will only increase over time.
Quote:Of course, the last part means greater opportunities for AFK-mining. That, in turn, probably explains why the Retriever has become the most commonly used mining ship, and also why the increase in mining activity is focused on high-security space.
The only observation worth reading in the blog.
The blog then goes on to talk about mining indices, however the only one that has significant changes is ice prices. Which again is the best source for AFK mining.
So in short what the Dev Blog should have been saying was that all the mining changes have achieved is that over a 3 month period:
- The production for exhumers is down, the production for mining barges is up
- Procurers and Retreviers form the largest part of mining barge production
- Mackinaws form by far the largest proportion of the exhumer production
- Mackinaws and Retrievers now form the largest part of the mining ship population
- The only mineral price to be drastically effected is ice
To me the conclusion should be that AFK mining has been given a significant boost (as the high cargo hold ships are the ones dominant) and that is what more players are now doing (as mainly ice prices have decreased which is the best AFK mining source). The reason that AFK mining has increased was due to the favourable ship for AFK mining (high cargo space) also having a "medium" tank preventing as many deaths (which is why production has slowed, as there is less demand for the ships).
Further more I'd expect that over the coming months the Hulk figures will continue to slowly erode (as old hulk players leave, new mining players start in mackinaws moving from the massive retriever boom) until eventually they replace the Hulk in terms of disparity between that ship and all of the others.
I have to say I am really disappointed with CCP, this is a sham of a devblog. I'm not actually against AFK mining per se, however what I am against is mis-representation of statistics. "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli |
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
11
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 12:24:00 -
[109] - Quote
For a game which prides its self on Emergent Play - mining is the furtherest thing from it. Miners follow a rather droll script. Warp to the same belt, strip the same astroids and dock at the same station. The introduction of barges was a bad idea to start with and contra to the prime tenet of the game because they promote non-emergent play in both industralists and pirates that are miner focused. Can ORE faction ships just be removed once and for all? Solves AFK and botting in a single stroke. |
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
32
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 13:51:00 -
[110] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:No, the problem will be fixed when mining will stop being a soul-crushing, boring, "AFK-it-if-you-wish-to-preserve-sanity" (in)activity. from a personal standpoint, i'm going to say you're absolutely wrong. when i have to be constantly watching my screen, i ain't going to be doing it for 20m/hour mining, i'll be something else, because almost any other activity nets more isk/hour. i only accept the low payout from mining because i can do it while doing other things, such as watching tv, writing, reading random internet crap, talking to friends on steam, etc. there's no way in hell i'd continue to mine if i had to be constantly watching my screen, the payout isn't worth it. to confound this, how would people with multiple mining accounts manage to monitor all 4+ accounts that they have? hell, one of the reasons i use an orca even with my 2 account setup is that i only have to tab to 1 screen to move ore, if i had more then i'd suck it up and tab to 2-3 other screens. however if i had to constantly be watching all of them at the same time... it simply wouldn't work under this new system and multibox mining would mean a lot of inactive accounts and sold mining characters. honestly, making mining "active" has been suggested many times and it simply isn't the solution, especially when mining's payout is so low and it will massively hurt multi-account miners.
I agree with this as a guy who has 100mil/hr null alts. Why would i spend my time on active hisec mining when i can make 100m/hr with my null alts on anoms.
And yes only reason i do mining aswell is that i can do it semi-afk. Meaning i can watch tv or read eve forums etc. while still seeing my display. Also ive mined while pvp'ing on my other alt...
But as i said before its just not the mining miners need to do. He need also refine, haul and sell. These things need alot skills and standings, isk and time. Lets say you need standings for refining you need to go do missions to get those standings. You need skills which take long to train like refining, mining mods, mining ships, tank skills etc. Then you basicly need to have freighter which costs 1,4billion and is long train aswell.. Or even orca but thats even longer training. Then you need to actually sell them stuff you mined, refined and hauled which can be tricky aswell.
Anyways what im saying here is that if someone is so jealous to highsec miners why dont he go try himself how little isk he will be making with all that time and effort spent to get hes stuff sold on market. Even if hes able to be semi-afk somewhere during the process.. |
|
Inquisitor Kitchner
Galaxy Punks Executive Outcomes
595
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 17:27:00 -
[111] - Quote
Nevermind. "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli |
Celgar Thurn
Department 10
67
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 11:47:00 -
[112] - Quote
In short the changes to mining from elimination of drone poo drops through to the mining ship re-balancing & new mining frigates were unnecessary and were a fix to a mining system that was largely UNBROKEN. To some peoples eyes mining was 'boring' but if they find something 'boring' then I suggest they do something else in New Eden. A side effect of these changes(Largely the drone poo removal.) was the increase in the prices of high sec ores/minerals which was needed to make mining a more attractive career. I think probably the 'fixing' of mining process should probably have ceased at that point. I still don't understand the reasoning behind vastly increasing the amount of minerals needed to make ships and hope CCP don't carry this process through the full range of ships. If you carry this idea all the way through to Titans there will be epic 'QQ' from the nul-sec community.
I am still waiting for you fix something that is broken in EVE Online. Namely the Corp/Alliance 'Roles & Permissions' interface with a view to making it very user friendly. Also the 'Roles & Permissions' interaction with all elements of POSes (Player Owned Stations.) which will need to be fixed BEFORE modular POSes are implemented. Put user friendlyness before eye candy please. We all love eye candy but if something doesn't work it doesn't matter that it looks sexy. |
Furuoiur Aurgnet
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 05:04:00 -
[113] - Quote
Why do people have to suicide gank miners to begin with? I mind my own business and don't bother anybody else. I don't see the fun in killing somebody who has no way of defending or fighting back themselves. What a shame that his game has gotten to be so filled up with so much hatefulness for others. This game is getting to the point where i'm afraid to even talk to anybody because I don't want to be hunted for saying anything, I think CCP is pushing those that aren't interested in killing everything that moves away. Sad part the only thing I"ll probably get in a response to this is eumurgurd you're just a carebear because there is nothing else, asshatery is taking this game over. |
Mara Tessidar
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
695
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 07:40:00 -
[114] - Quote
Furuoiur Aurgnet wrote:Why do people have to suicide gank miners to begin with? I mind my own business and don't bother anybody else. I don't see the fun in killing somebody who has no way of defending or fighting back themselves. What a shame that his game has gotten to be so filled up with so much hatefulness for others. This game is getting to the point where i'm afraid to even talk to anybody because I don't want to be hunted for saying anything, I think CCP is pushing those that aren't interested in killing everything that moves away. Sad part the only thing I"ll probably get in a response to this is eumurgurd you're just a carebear because there is nothing else, asshatery is taking this game over.
The point of Eve Online is to be an asshat, hth EveO is a circus train that is for bafflingly unclear reasons also carrying tanks of chlorine gas,-ácrashing and exploding in the middle of a small midwestern town. -áCalling it a mere train wreck gives neither the entertainment nor the horror it offers its proper due. |
Mara Tessidar
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
695
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 07:41:00 -
[115] - Quote
Also I made about 3 billion ISK by shooting miners, that's probably another reason :thumbsup: EveO is a circus train that is for bafflingly unclear reasons also carrying tanks of chlorine gas,-ácrashing and exploding in the middle of a small midwestern town. -áCalling it a mere train wreck gives neither the entertainment nor the horror it offers its proper due. |
Darth Gustav
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
1838
|
Posted - 2012.12.15 20:29:00 -
[116] - Quote
Furuoiur Aurgnet wrote:Why do people have to suicide gank miners to begin with? I mind my own business and don't bother anybody else. I don't see the fun in killing somebody who has no way of defending or fighting back themselves. What a shame that his game has gotten to be so filled up with so much hatefulness for others. This game is getting to the point where i'm afraid to even talk to anybody because I don't want to be hunted for saying anything, I think CCP is pushing those that aren't interested in killing everything that moves away. Sad part the only thing I"ll probably get in a response to this is eumurgurd you're just a carebear because there is nothing else, asshatery is taking this game over. Because if we don't the miners will completely devalue their own profession due to over-mining.
Just look at the trends since the barge buff.
Economics wrote:Value = Demand / Supply
As supply goes up, value goes down. The only way to counteract this trend is to either increase demand considerably or to reduce available supply.
High-sec ice miners want neither to happen. They want profits now. This can be seen through market analysis of all the ice products. They want this profit so badly that they're not only willing to ruin ice mining for future miners by creating an overwhelming glut of ice products, but also at the expense of their own rate of pay. Their activity has literally cost them the majority of their actual ISK paychecks.
This is simple economics which is beyond the "peaceful" world view of the bot-aspirant miner. By asking to not be interfered with, you are asking players and CCP to directly screw over players who haven't started playing Eve yet but who may wish to engage in mining as a career.
Yet we're the griefers...in a spaceship macroeconomics game...good one. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
Dave stark
819
|
Posted - 2012.12.18 10:56:00 -
[117] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote: Just look at the trends since the barge buff.
yeah, i mean the price of low ends doubling is terrible for us miners. :) Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
379
|
Posted - 2012.12.18 15:29:00 -
[118] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:Furuoiur Aurgnet wrote:Why do people have to suicide gank miners to begin with? *snip* Because if we don't the miners will completely devalue their own profession due to over-mining.Just look at the trends since the barge buff. This is nonsense. A big war or bunch of super cap construction arrays will chew through quite a bit of excess minerals. AND the loss of minerals from the removal of drone droppings has got to be filled in somehow.
Furthermore, those in the north with nearly uncontested access to technetium moons (and possibly exhumer BPOs) have the potential to profit greatly from the market churn of those tech 2 mining barges. Your ganks are creating more of a market for the materials that you control.
So, any noble bullshit about helping the market and greater game economy through ganks, falls on deaf ears. That is not to say that ganks are not legitimate gameplay -- they are completely legit. But let's be truthful about things.
Darth Gustav wrote:Economics wrote:Value = Demand / Supply As supply goes up, value goes down. The only way to counteract this trend is to either increase demand considerably or to reduce available supply. High-sec ice miners want neither to happen. They want profits now. This can be seen through market analysis of all the ice products. They want this profit so badly that they're not only willing to ruin ice mining for future miners by creating an overwhelming glut of ice products, but also at the expense of their own rate of pay. Their activity has literally cost them the majority of their actual ISK paychecks. This is simple economics which is beyond the "peaceful" world view of the bot-aspirant miner. By asking to not be interfered with, you are asking players and CCP to directly screw over players who haven't started playing Eve yet but who may wish to engage in mining as a career. Yet we're the griefers...in a spaceship macroeconomics game...good one. And yet people are willing to pay the higher prices for ships in order to PvP or partake in other activities. It is not clear that your scenario of greater supply is taking place. And if it is, buyers are willing to shoulder the higher prices up to a point.
Utter bullshit when it comes to the 'noble' practice of ganking. Call it for what it is: griefing and profiteering from the market churn on tech 2 products. +++++++ I have never shed a tear for a fellow EVE player until now. Mark GÇ£SeleeneGÇ¥ Heard's Blog Honoring Sean "Vile Rat" Smith. |
James Amril-Kesh
RAZOR Alliance
1602
|
Posted - 2012.12.25 23:17:00 -
[119] - Quote
I'm going to start bumping this thread every couple of days or so until CCP admits to their mistake. -áObjects in mirror aren't as red as they appear. |
Balder Verdandi
Czerka. The Aslyum
85
|
Posted - 2012.12.27 06:49:00 -
[120] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:I'm going to start bumping this thread every couple of days or so until CCP admits to their mistake.
Good luck my friend. It took CCP like 6 months to fix the Unified Inventory with absolutely no comments from the devs or staff.
And free bump and +1 for you as well. I don't stab people in the back. -áWhen you do, you miss the look on their face and that's priceless.
Long live the failure known as "Unified Inventory"! |
|
Dave stark
1468
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 00:33:00 -
[121] - Quote
still no comment on when they're going to actually make the ships balanced and useful for specific roles? "100k for notifications of stupidity, i love this bounty system." |
James Amril-Kesh
RAZOR Alliance
3130
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 02:19:00 -
[122] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:still no comment on when they're going to actually make the ships balanced and useful for specific roles? NEVAR!!!!111111 Phrases like "you can't nerf / buff X EVE is a Sandbox" have the same amount of meaning as "If this is a sack of potatoes then you can not carrot." - Alara IonStorm |
Dave Stark
1539
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 20:15:00 -
[123] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Dave stark wrote:still no comment on when they're going to actually make the ships balanced and useful for specific roles? NEVAR!!!!111111
never :( "100k for notifications of stupidity, i love this bounty system." |
Darth Gustav
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
2148
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 20:21:00 -
[124] - Quote
Hakaru Ishiwara wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:Furuoiur Aurgnet wrote:Why do people have to suicide gank miners to begin with? *snip* Because if we don't the miners will completely devalue their own profession due to over-mining.Just look at the trends since the barge buff. This is nonsense. A big war or bunch of super cap construction arrays will chew through quite a bit of excess minerals. AND the loss of minerals from the removal of drone droppings has got to be filled in somehow. Furthermore, those in the north with nearly uncontested access to technetium moons (and possibly exhumer BPOs) have the potential to profit greatly from the market churn of those tech 2 mining barges. Your ganks are creating more of a market for the materials that you control. So, any noble bullshit about helping the market and greater game economy through ganks, falls on deaf ears. That is not to say that ganks are not legitimate gameplay -- they are completely legit. But let's be truthful about things. Darth Gustav wrote:Economics wrote:Value = Demand / Supply As supply goes up, value goes down. The only way to counteract this trend is to either increase demand considerably or to reduce available supply. High-sec ice miners want neither to happen. They want profits now. This can be seen through market analysis of all the ice products. They want this profit so badly that they're not only willing to ruin ice mining for future miners by creating an overwhelming glut of ice products, but also at the expense of their own rate of pay. Their activity has literally cost them the majority of their actual ISK paychecks. This is simple economics which is beyond the "peaceful" world view of the bot-aspirant miner. By asking to not be interfered with, you are asking players and CCP to directly screw over players who haven't started playing Eve yet but who may wish to engage in mining as a career. Yet we're the griefers...in a spaceship macroeconomics game...good one. And yet people are willing to pay the higher prices for ships in order to PvP or partake in other activities. It is not clear that your scenario of greater supply is taking place. And if it is, buyers are willing to shoulder the higher prices up to a point. Utter bullshit when it comes to the 'noble' practice of ganking. Call it for what it is: griefing and profiteering from the market churn on tech 2 products. Again, those are legitimate activities in EVE, simply not of the noble type. Tell me again how mining ice AFK for 23.5 hours a day is good for the future of the ice mining profession.
EDIT: Clearly the prices of ice products are pretty much flatlining. You seem to think my statements (and economics in general) indicate that cost will increase with supply. Your post has an awful lot of words and opinions for being predicated on false pretenses. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
Dave Stark
1540
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 22:03:00 -
[125] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:Tell me again how mining ice AFK for 23.5 hours a day is good for the future of the ice mining profession. EDIT: Clearly the prices of ice products are pretty much flatlining. You seem to think my statements (and economics in general) indicate that cost will increase with supply. Your post has an awful lot of words and opinions for being predicated on false pretenses.
ice and minerals aren't quite the same. sure mining ice is no where near as lucrative as it was. however what happens when minerals follow the same trend? ships get cheaper because when minerals get cheaper the industrialists can undercut each other and keep the same profit margins so our purchasing power stays the same so frankly we don't give a damn if mineral prices go up or down. not to mention due to the drone region changes mining is more lucrative now than it's ever been. hell, even plex should go down when minerals go down, check the thread in the MD forum for more on that one.
yeah, more miners means mineral prices going down, but a miner's purchasing power is pretty much a constant rate that doesn't change much when prices go up or down. hence, it's really irrelevant if we devalue our own profession because it's going to take 10 hours to make enough isk for it whether trit is 6 isk per unit, or 3 isk per unit, give or take. look at the price of a charon, and an orca. when trit was 3 isk/unit charons were about 800m and orcas about 350m. now trit is at 6isk/unit and charons are 1.6bn or so, and orcas are close to 700m. the time in hours to mine enough isk to purchase these ships is unchanged even though prices have changed. "100k for notifications of stupidity, i love this bounty system." |
Darth Gustav
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
2149
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 10:10:00 -
[126] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:Tell me again how mining ice AFK for 23.5 hours a day is good for the future of the ice mining profession. EDIT: Clearly the prices of ice products are pretty much flatlining. You seem to think my statements (and economics in general) indicate that cost will increase with supply. Your post has an awful lot of words and opinions for being predicated on false pretenses. ice and minerals aren't quite the same. sure mining ice is no where near as lucrative as it was. however what happens when minerals follow the same trend? ships get cheaper because when minerals get cheaper the industrialists can undercut each other and keep the same profit margins so our purchasing power stays the same so frankly we don't give a damn if mineral prices go up or down. not to mention due to the drone region changes mining is more lucrative now than it's ever been. hell, even plex should go down when minerals go down, check the thread in the MD forum for more on that one. yeah, more miners means mineral prices going down, but a miner's purchasing power is pretty much a constant rate that doesn't change much when prices go up or down. hence, it's really irrelevant if we devalue our own profession because it's going to take 10 hours to make enough isk for it whether trit is 6 isk per unit, or 3 isk per unit, give or take. look at the price of a charon, and an orca. when trit was 3 isk/unit charons were about 800m and orcas about 350m. now trit is at 6isk/unit and charons are 1.6bn or so, and orcas are close to 700m. the time in hours to mine enough isk to purchase these ships is unchanged even though prices have changed.
Tell me again how high sec miners don't care if PLEX prices go up when they're earning peanuts for mining.
Minerals or ice, it doesn't matter. Devaluing your own profession is stupid. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
Dave Stark
1578
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 21:03:00 -
[127] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:Tell me again how high-sec miners don't care if PLEX prices go up when they're earning peanuts for mining.
Minerals or ice, it doesn't matter. Devaluing your own profession is stupid.
because see the MD forum about the post that shows a link between plex and mineral prices. devaluing our profession means nothing since our purchasing power stays the same. we have to mine for 10 hours to buy item x regardless of whether trit is 500 isk per unit, or 5 isk per unit.
tell me again why we should give a **** if we devalue our profession? "100k for notifications of stupidity, i love this bounty system." |
Darth Gustav
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
2150
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 17:56:00 -
[128] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:Tell me again how high-sec miners don't care if PLEX prices go up when they're earning peanuts for mining.
Minerals or ice, it doesn't matter. Devaluing your own profession is stupid. because see the MD forum about the post that shows a link between plex and mineral prices. devaluing our profession means nothing since our purchasing power stays the same. we have to mine for 10 hours to buy item x regardless of whether trit is 500 isk per unit, or 5 isk per unit. tell me again why we should give a **** if we devalue our profession? Think about the newbies.
Edit:
Also, Trit is up but ice is down.
So you have to mine ice longer now than you used to in order to earn enough isk to buy the same spaceship. Much longer.
It must be hard to see the world in only one shade of only one color. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
Dave Stark
1587
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 23:14:00 -
[129] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:Tell me again how high-sec miners don't care if PLEX prices go up when they're earning peanuts for mining.
Minerals or ice, it doesn't matter. Devaluing your own profession is stupid. because see the MD forum about the post that shows a link between plex and mineral prices. devaluing our profession means nothing since our purchasing power stays the same. we have to mine for 10 hours to buy item x regardless of whether trit is 500 isk per unit, or 5 isk per unit. tell me again why we should give a **** if we devalue our profession? Think about the newbies. Edit: Also, Trit is up but ice is down. So you have to mine ice longer now than you used to in order to earn enough isk to buy the same spaceship. Much longer. It must be hard to see the world in only one shade of only one color.
miners don't care about ice, we leave that for the bots. also, what does this have to do with newbies in the slightest? "100k for notifications of stupidity, i love this bounty system." |
Darth Gustav
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
2153
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 21:33:00 -
[130] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:Tell me again how high-sec miners don't care if PLEX prices go up when they're earning peanuts for mining.
Minerals or ice, it doesn't matter. Devaluing your own profession is stupid. because see the MD forum about the post that shows a link between plex and mineral prices. devaluing our profession means nothing since our purchasing power stays the same. we have to mine for 10 hours to buy item x regardless of whether trit is 500 isk per unit, or 5 isk per unit. tell me again why we should give a **** if we devalue our profession? Think about the newbies. Edit: Also, Trit is up but ice is down. So you have to mine ice longer now than you used to in order to earn enough isk to buy the same spaceship. Much longer. It must be hard to see the world in only one shade of only one color. miners don't care about ice, we leave that for the bots. also, what does this have to do with newbies in the slightest?
Devalue the profession of ice mining enough and newbies lose a potential career path.
Ice mining and mining are inseparable. As long as there is an eternal teat upon which the Mackinaws may suckle, there will be disincentive for people to mine minerals and any argument you may have will be skewed irreconcilably. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
|
Kusum Fawn
State War Academy Caldari State
287
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 14:46:00 -
[131] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote: Devalue the profession of ice mining enough and newbies lose a potential career path.
Ice mining and mining are inseparable. As long as there is an eternal teat upon which the Mackinaws may suckle, there will be disincentive for people to mine minerals and any argument you may have will be skewed irreconcilably.
dude what?
if the teat that macks suckle upon is ice, people wont mine trit?
have you even read your post? Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
|
Darth Gustav
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
2153
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 21:42:00 -
[132] - Quote
Kusum Fawn wrote:Darth Gustav wrote: Devalue the profession of ice mining enough and newbies lose a potential career path.
Ice mining and mining are inseparable. As long as there is an eternal teat upon which the Mackinaws may suckle, there will be disincentive for people to mine minerals and any argument you may have will be skewed irreconcilably.
dude what? if the teat that macks suckle upon is ice, people wont mine trit? have you even read your post?
Miners don't want to pay attention. It's why they mine.
Mining at a rock that never depletes is vastly easier than mining at any number of depletable rocks.
Seems pretty self-explanatory. Market data backs it up. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 14:31:00 -
[133] - Quote
Nice to know CCP doesn't care about how useless they have made insurance since this change....until they change the scrap rates, insurance will not be used...on these and any of the ships they have altered the build requirements for. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
1213
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 15:38:00 -
[134] - Quote
asteroidjas wrote:Nice to know CCP doesn't care about how useless they have made insurance since this change....until they change the scrap rates, insurance will not be used...on these and any of the ships they have altered the build requirements for.
Not such a bad thing. Insurance being a net isk Faucet, after all. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities.As well as mysql and CSV/XLS conversions of the Static Data Extract. |
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
5
|
Posted - 2013.03.19 13:51:00 -
[135] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote: Not such a bad thing. Insurance being a net isk Faucet, after all.
Insurance hasn't been a Faucet since they tied it to mineral costs like over a year ago....since then you've had to spend more than you get to buy a ship and insure it "fully". But now insurance rates are for what the ships were before their build requirements doubled, tripled or more...so really, i guess its just about as good as insurance for a T2 ship...since that only yields an appropriate amount for the T1 base ship. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |