No, I mean that point:

you mean the point that regardless of the fact that the ships cost more than smaller ships, they're still routinely used?

yeah your point about ships not being used because of cost is void when... ships are being used regardless of how expensive they are.

You are glossing over the context these "expensive" ships are being used under.

A titan is a big ship. CCP claimed surprise when the cost of these was not the bigger limit to their existence that they expected it to be.

That being said, most players still don't own one.
Most players cannot afford to buy them, even assuming they were willing to sacrifice the year in training it also needed.

I doubt very much we want subcaps to become less common.
If the price escalates above what the typical player can afford, then they will either not buy them, or only use them when convinced they do so without risk of loss.

Players will risk what they feel comfortable risking.

Pricing sets that comfort level, effectively.

2009, megathrons were a pinch under 90m per. now they're nearly double that, at near 170m. (according to eve-markets)

thousands of them were dumped on 6vdt in fountain not long ago. if you need a battleship; you'll buy a battleship.

actually, i just proved the price has nothing to do with what ships people will use.

but you feel free to ignore facts.

The example you used has nothing to do with a person's ability to afford a loss. In the case of your example it has to do with a coalition's ability to afford a loss. All this example is a testament to is the change in relative wealth of Alliances and Coalitions with respect to individuals.

A player's ability to afford a loss is not based on the arbitrary and fluctuating value of the current monetary system. It is based on the time require to mitigate the loss. As a loss requires more and more time to recover from they will be less and less willing to take that risk.


For the inevitable "what about supers and titans if coalitions are so rich" arguement.

Supers and especially Titans require not only Isk to replace, but very large quantities of time. And coalitions cannot acquire a wealth of time. This makes them even more risk than their isk value. Which is why you only see them in extremely 1 sided fights or just once or twice a year in max numbers.

it has nothing to do with affording loss.

he said people will stop using ships when price increases; i proved that to be false.

Now you're suggesting that profits be made so meager that even a bot - working all day long - can hardly PLEX an account.

Bot mining is extremely common because it is more than possible to mine enough income in highsec to plex the account using a simple computer program that can run the mining operation.

Solution: Make highsec mining not profitable enough to sustain an account all by itself.

Economic reaction: Nearly all highsec bot mining operations will disappear; the majority of remaining highsec bot miners will be characters that are used for other things as well. The only remaining characters devoted entirely to botting will have operators who run other passive income sources as well to suplement their income.

How to accomplish this: Reduce the demand for highsec minerals. Dramatically increase the prevalence of minerals tritanium, pyerite, mexallon, and isogen.

If normal players could mine in highsec enough for their own ships in their off time, then highsec mineral income would plummet. The economy could not sustain lots of bot miners because there simply wouldn't be enough demand for those minerals. A lot of manufacturers would refuse to pay large amounts of ISK for their minerals when they could just go mine them in a short amount of time.

My solution to mining would be to reduce the amount of minerals seeded by 90% and then to reduce material requirements of all manufactured items by 90%. I think this would basically make mining 10x more competitive and 10x more profitable. With resources being so sparse, miners wouldn't be able to sit around mining all day, they'd have to be cunning and daring to get to the ore before anyone else, and then try to mine it all as fast as they can for a tidy profit. It would also encourage miners to search further afield for minerals, but without the limitation of being forced to sit in belts for hours undefended. They'd still need to defend themselves though because an increase in competition means an increase in PvP.

The problem is, you are making it first come, first served, and up to 9 out of 10 current miners are out of luck.

I like the idea of there being an aspect of "early bird catching the worm", but I guess there should be some mechanic to allow resources to spawn roughly evenly around the clock.

at least anyone i know has hat least 2 accounts or more if he produces somesthing

also why should i not be able to plex my acc with mining with enough time at hand

OP is confusing ISK faucets with mining

Mining produces 0 ISK
You could mine continuously, 23 hours a day, for a year and you would have a grand total of zero ISK
NONE, NOTHING, NAUGHT ..... these are the words your looking for to describe the income generated from mining.

A miner has to sell his Ore
Trading in Eve incurs fees and taxes
Mining is an ISK sink, it removes ISK from the in game economy.

OP is confusing ISK faucets with mining

Everyone I know who handles a significant portion of the background efforts that maintain our gameplay (mining, PI, production, logistics/hauling, trade, POS fueling) treats this work as a job and they don't seem to be enjoying it. They spend much time and energy at it, and all because they feel like it is important for them to do that. We may not be able to stop these people from wasting their time and energy like that, but I see no reason to encourage it.

But wait...if they didn't like it, or at least feel engaged by it they wouldn't do it. They are therefore not wasting their time. On top of that this is a game, it is by definition a waste of time for the purpose of enjoyment. Who are we to say how people should and shouldn';t spend their time in eve?

You want isk faucet botting removed ?
Then turn your attention to nul-sec belt ratting.

yeah but better dosnt mean more action and or fight i would have fun if i have the fealing i manage a small mining op alone
lets say asteroids in pi view setting laser positions and drones as well as controlling the cargo of the drones and when the come back something like that

I see nothing wrong with making some aspects universally automated.
The moment we came to accept AFK gameplay, we freely admitted some parts were too dull to even pay attention to.

This lets the devs balance it fairly for EVERYONE. That is a big deal, when trying to figure out how to make direct play rewarding, while limiting the impact from someone using automated tricks.
(I suspect limited availability for ore/ice came from this, to be honest...)
To be fair, devs have said in the past that they have botting under control.

Now, add to this a multiboxer, who can't watch every screen at the same time, but wants to play EVE that much... I don't think we want to mess up his game either.