hilariously, this change is part of what's intended to make what they're trying to do worth the effort

not to you, no.

reprocessing meta 1-4 mods is already terrible and noone sane should be doing it. mining in a t1 barge'd get more isk. (e: i mean, opposed to processing your own mission loot) there's only one non-ore/ice skill anyway. this isn't a 'profession' (what there is of it) worth saving.

i hope that there will be a place for someone to buy ore and reprocess in a starbase or something, though. that's something that doesn't exist currently and has a good chance of being created.

GǪand what's the ore for?

Another point: I was actually thinking the other week how silly it was that you had to compress minerals for transport by building guns, bastion modules and so on. So after this change you won't have to? That's a big improvement I think. If you're going to compress, make compression "a thing".

i mean it's pretty damned odd that the only use for meta 1-3 garbage is its refining value when the only reason it's so cheap is that it's so bloody useless in its actual role

think about how strange it is when people aren't complaining that the mods are so useless they're primarily used as garbage, they're complaining that the mods are even more useless as garbage by 50%

Why not just buy them?

No newbie profession is being killed here.

The details of the reprocessing changes are already issued. No speculation involved.
No such details for "metacide" habe been issued, though I dont doubt much they will eventually get around to it.

So nice try, but you missed.

GǪand they can keep salvaging and reprocessing..

That's the core flaw of this entire complaint: the absurd exaggeration that GÇ£lessGÇ¥ somehow means GÇ£noneGÇ¥.

the rebalancing team is ytterbium, tallest, fozzie and rise iirc

and they've always said that if it comes it'll be after all the ships are done

GǪaside from the ones that exist right now: because it makes the market part of the equation less of a burden.

Why should I give reasons for someone else's stance?

hahaha on the one hand you say 'just make all t2 better than meta 4' leaving aside meta 1-3 till later then you complain they're analysing and reiterating their previous work

no it's not faster just to make unconsidered changes, that's how ccp's historically screwed up big time

nah noone uses them

meta 0 - used by the noobiest of newbies (less than a week old) and t2 production, otherwise completely useless
meta 1 to 3 - useless except for guns where meta 4 is often too expensive, and prop mods
meta 4 - only used for fitting or if you haven't trained t2
meta 5 - standard

faction/officer - guns are useless. some faction are useless, and let's not talk about cosmos

non-t1 meta 0 - wtf is this

GǪand the doom and gloom you paint as a consequence of this remains unsubstantiated.

Oh, you meant GÇ£no reason to touchGÇ¥ that way? I read it as you trying to parrot Salvos' claim that no-one will touch the skills.
But if you mean that there's no reason to change how reprocessing works, then I have already described one. Feel free to respond to it rather than pretend it doesn't exist.

please don't post like a ****. and that poster's talking about belt/anom gunmining for building so it's safe so say he's Doing It Wrong

anyone with a calculator

Furthermore, the scrapmetal nerf was going to be coming no matter what. While rebalancing frigates and cruisers, they discovered that you can't increase the cost of things you've made better by adding minerals, because some jackass will build them for the old mineral cost and reprocess for magic minerals. (which is both immersion-breaking *and* game-breaking) After adding bad solutions like extra materials, they needed to find a way to undo it. For example, some of the T1 cruisers are damn close to 50% extra materials as a result. This screws up insurance pricing as a side effect.

The ships needed to increase in cost because they were no longer pieces of ****.
The Caracal, to pick a favorite example of mine, gained two low slots. It needed them to be anything other than a joke compared to T2 ships. The Condor, that scourge of FW plexes gained, IIRC, a mid *and* a low. (I remember flying a 1-lowslot condor as a newbie; it was completely ******* useless.) Heck, even the non-tier-3 battleships gained a ton of minerals because they were buffed up to tier-3 effectiveness, at least in theory, and the intent was to have them cost similar resources to produce as a result.

It used to be that first you flew a cheap, crappy cruiser and then a non-crappy cruiser, or, really, just went straight for BCs because T1 cruisers were almost all crappy. (Hurricanes and Drakes online, remember?) When they changed it for ships to have niches rather than being strictly better or worse despite doing completely different things, they needed to make the former "cheap, crappy" ships not as cheap, because they weren't as crappy, either.

Most of the people complaining are in highsec, and have little, if no, actual understanding of how this change affects them. Most of them don't even realise that in 6months it will be a net buff to if they adapted, but will instead just scream and cry and wail because understanding things is too hard.

Remember: this is basically the echo chamber of "no but the minerals I mine are free" crowd.

How is it? The base REPROCESS value will be different, sure. But since most items aren't at all based on that value, it will have no real effect on the market. All manufactured items will still be measured by their manufacture input for example, and the others will be based on demand. So no, I'd avoid the use of the word "All" there and I'd probably avoid words like "most" or "many" too.

Why? You're already bringing all the other loot to the market. Are you really going to sit in space and avoid looting all of the meta 1-3s? No. You'll still bring it in, just that portion of your income will be reduced. And in the lifecycle of a mission, that's a very small subset of income.

Right. And since when is the market for ALL ITEMS based on their reprocess value?

It's not that big a step, especially when you take into account that MTUs increased the efficiency of gathering that very same loot. You can now just dump an MTU and go back later to scoop the loot. That's far more efficient than a lone tractor beam or flying between wrecks. And again, it only affects junk loot, not marketable loot, not salvage, not bounties or rewards or LP. So it's not the blanket nerf that most people seem to be complaining about.

Yes, I know what reprocessing is. Are you saying your reprocess ALL ITEMS? If you do, I can already see where the problem is here.

And nice avoidance on the fact that MTUs boosted income significantly.

GǪwhich doesn't preclude you from also going for scrap refining, and since more minerals is better than less minerals, that's all the rationale you need to train the skill.
.

OK, I really don't know how you don't get this.

I'll say it nice and slow.
The value of most items is not related to their reprocess value.

Get that? So if the amount of minerals they reprocess into changes, what will change? Nothing. People aren't going to suddenly start selling Abaddons 45% undervalued because that's what they reprocess into. So their reprocess value means precisely **** all.

So why do you keep banging on about the "reprocess value" since it's a value that literally nobody will even bother calculating for most items? What is your complaint? You can't just keep going "ZOMG all items reprocess value is going to be down and that BAAAAAAAD", you have to explain why an insignificant number changing is going to be bad.


And MTUs increased the rate at which you can gather loot, thus increasing overall loot income. So you are totally happy with that massive buff to income, but any nerf and you fly off the handle?

By the way, did you miss this one. It answers your "why do it" question.

OK, so what you are saying is you reprocess all of your loot? So you are oblivious to the fact that many items you can sell for a value higher than the reprocess value, then buy minerals with that isk which leaves you with more minerals than you would have had through reprocessing. That sounds like your problem.

So get better at being self sufficient. Learn new ways to keep yourself in ships.

Yup, it's not like I'm an industrialist and a trader at all is it? I just pop over to the goons and say "isk please" and march away all cheery. The fact is, I make a lot of isk, and I do a lot of refining, manufacturing and trading, and when they hit with a nerf, I just adapt my play to figure out's what's best for me. I mean ****, I was in drone space when they nuked the ever living hell out of the drone loot, leaving us with a massive mineral void. I adapted to the situation. It sounds like if you did the same, there would be no issues.

I mean if I played this game without PvP loss reimbursement from my alliance I'd pursue activities that yield good ISK like some combination of FW, l4 blitzing, incursions, scams, freighter ganking and wormhole PvE and turn that ISK into ships through the magic of the Jita market but clearly I've got it all wrong and I would be better off looting wrecks in missions and turning trash modules into ships

1) Use alts.
2) Congrats. Still use alts.
3) Not even remotely. I have active characters in almost all areas of space (WH ops have been down while CFC have been at war as it's too time heavy).

The idea for the change is for it to be a big enough hit to stop gun mining from being as feasible as it is, allow room for change on item costs, prevent item based compression and easy industry copouts. Any chunk of lowsec that is hit so hard by it, I'm sorry to say is doing it wrong. It's not even remotely efficient to rely purely on reprocessed loot even in it's current state.

You don't. You can always hire someone.

If they use too low a number, it won't give them enough scope for material reshuffles during rebalance. Some ships already have nearly half their cost as extra materials due to this.

You don't, but if you choose to live in low sec and make it impossible to go to high sec, then you are going to be restricted to what low sec has to offer. Do you build 100% of what you use? T2s and all? I find it hard to believe that you have absolutely no ability to trade into and out of high sec.

But really your situation is your choice. I could try to live in a wormhole with no POS and with no probe launcher. It clearly would be a bad situation to be in but that's a choice I could make.

They pretty much did. With the tiers removed, the price differences had to go as well since they were part of that ill-advised tiering structure. Massively reducing the value of Gàö of the ships already in the game was not a viable way to go, whereas having a ramp-up mechanism to bridge the gap to a higher base value was actually feasible.

Since the pricing difference was one of the core element of the tier structure, and the tier structure had to go, they really did have to do thatGǪ

It's about as far away from arbitrary as it gets: it was, in fact, the entire point.

Just one problem: we do not have the necessary means to alter the manufacturing process. So no, they pretty much had to, and again, this arbitrary differentiation was exactly what they wanted to remove since it had ultimately failed to do any good.

The primary goal of tiericide is to eliminate any explicit power difference between ships within a class. If the power within a class is more or less level across all ships (which it is after the rebalance), the price should also be level.

So then, if prices are to be more level, where should this new price line be set? The obvious answer would be to just average the cost of all battleships and then set the prices at that average - top tier prices would come down, and bottom would go up. Unfortunately, with battleships, this was not possible. Top tier battleships represent an enormous amount of mineral consumption in EVE at their current costs. That means that lowering the cost of tier 3 battleships would have a recessionary effect on EVE's economy as mineral prices suffered.

That means we are to have prices more equal, but also, we can't lower the prices of the top tier ships significantly. This felt a bit uncomfortable at first, causing certain Devs to say "OMGWTFZFBFBFBB!!" when they saw the proposal, but we looked into some metrics around player wealth and income and found that EVE players are making money faster and faster, and even new players should have no trouble enduring the bump in cost. On top of this, inflation provides room for cost increase as well.

That is exactly what I'm talking about, you knowGǪ It was a kludge to bridge the gap between the old arbitrary (and ultimately incorrect) prices and the tierless ones they wanted for the tierless ships.

The equalisation was, again, pretty much the opposite of arbitrary: it was very deliberate and with a very specific goal in mind, namely to erase the arbitrary differences that were put in place when the game was initially designed and which had since been proven to not do their job.

GǪexactly the reason I stated: they had to be equalised and down was not an option.

Why can't you answer a simple question?
Why is it stupid to pick a skill that lets you earn more?
How do you earn more with less minerals?
What makes you think that a unit of trit will be worth anything other than a unit of trit?

And everything you just said can be easily summed up as: "Waah! Highsec isn't the best place for everything now!"

GǪas long as you do a like-for-like comparison with everything else remaining constant. The trouble is, of course, that they are not the same and that both availability and interruptions drastically cut into the long-term profitability of almost all of them when compared to the universal and uninterrupted availability you get in highsec. And that doesn't even touch the added costs of logistics and development costs, neither of which even exist in highsec since it's all available for free.

Oh, and if you can't do them safer in high than in null, you're not so much doing things wrong, as utterly and completely incompetent.

which is then counteracted by not being doing it to the same extent.

I prefer to view it as effort/reward, and again, the higher rewards of null have a nasty habit of still not being worth the additional effort. But yes, lowsec should be abundant with riches for all the hoops you have to jump through to secure them.

This is why prejudice is bad. You obvioulsy don't understand how things work or how people react.

Swapping Ls and NS moons simply mean null allainces invade low sec even more than they do now. My very 1st fight as a member of a Raiden Alliance corp was a fight over a low sec moon (got on 72 kill mails my 1st day in raiden, 13 final kills and 4 solo kills inculded in that total).

Do you think some magical wall exists that will keep null from taking the low sec moons? Swapping the moons simply means people like me because your new low sec overlords, which you for one should welcome (lol).

And you can't "force" anyone to do anything. Time and time again it's been demonstrated that if you nerf null, people just adapt with alts, which is why many of us have high sec, faction warfare and wormhole isk making alts. Every change CCP has made to try to get people to "use" sov null resulted in an alt exodus (like the anom nerf that had the result of making high sec incursion wait lists longer lol).

How exactly does this make NS increasingly wealthy? The effect will be on null loot too. Not to mention that the last income change made was a direct nerf to nullsec bounties. And the one prior to that was the MTU change which increased loot income efficiency across the board. This change only reduces that efficiency across the board again, but without going back to the "don't bother looting" thing it used to be.

EDIT: By the way, it's only more dangerous because less people live there and the groups that do live there fight rather than cooperate. Low sec space itself isn't inherently riskier than null. NPC null in fact is pretty much identical but with harder hitting rats. If a null blob chose to live in lowsec it would be the same as a null group living out of NPC null.

And a small group renting space can survive quite well as they don't attract much attention. A large group though, all packed into a smaller area, that would attract pirates from everywhere. If that happened, suddenly there would be a requirement for people to effectively stand guard and be a player run concord for the area, which would be the most boring job in the game.

More like the little reward doesn't justify the risk.

Not only are you *literally* complaining about security through co-operation in a multiplayer game, come patch day any highsec miner will be able to drop a pos in a dead end, enjoy the same empty (and thus useful) local that comprises the majority of the *actual* protection in nullsec and dump straight to the compressor from their mack, and fly the compressed ore in a viator, which is almost uninterceptable in highsec if you can manage to make undocking and docking instas.

Presuming that you set yourself a 1B limit on your freighter to avoid economic ganking, the viator actually hauls *more* compressed ore because of how damn fast it is, and small pos, compressor and viator is a lot cheaper than a freighter. You only need the pos online when compressing so not even fuel is a bother.

Unless the reward is equal to however much you can make in highsec with the combined force of yourself and the people who would have to guard no, no, it's not worth it.

In fact, even then highsec is preferable, because at least that way you're aren't doing something as mind numbingly bored as guard duty.

You do realize that, despite how you may blow and bluster, the Goons moongoo doesn't even pay all their sov bills?

And....? I suppose you are going to claim their SRP comes out of that, too?

Yeah, you don't care about the truth, clearly. The total income of every R64 on the map isn't enough to cover their SRP.
Grr, g/m(oons), I guess. You have fun with that.

Necessary expenses > Passive income. By a huge margin. So who gives a rat's ass?

Did you actually just tell me than a functional SRP is not necessary for a sov holding coalition?

Yeah, nerf the entirely meta concept of a reimbursement program, apparently? Or is this another one of those, "Grr having friends" things?

It's backbone is not passive income. The passive income doesn't even pay their sov bills.

Yeah, nerf mining. Making money by not playing the game is bad design. Alternatively, we could add loot spew to mining of all types.

Oh, and your statement did not even attempt to answer my point.

The Goons' combined income from all their moongoo does not even pay for all of their sov bills. Their SRP apparently, according to you, just popped up out of nowhere.

I'm not a Goon, and I live in a wormhole. Our corp just moved into a C5, in fact.

You need better retorts.

So you are against PI then.

Its not like you can get locked out of the systems, if you go to 319 right now I'd wager that there are about 15-20 neutrals there running missions or ship spinning or what have you.

Where or not you are blue with the current residents of delve or not is of no matter, a lot of players spend most of their time in NPC null harassing whomever lives next door, or simply running missions.

Are you ever going to let me know where you got that 272% from or is that going to remain on of those "out of my ass" figures.

And will you ever stop crying about null? If it's so good, move there. If not, shut the **** up.

OK, so by #1, you mean mercoxit, and that's not at all scalable.

I'm also not entirely sure where you got your figures from, because from the market data it works out to be ~150% ark to veld. veldspar is also one of the lowest tier ores, so you are comparing the highest possible ore in null with one of the the lowest possible ores in high? It doesn't surprise me you are getting a large gap. It certainly doesn't translate directly to income though, since the resulting materials need to be shipped for sale.

Stop having such a fit about passive income. If you don't like it, leave. Stop crying that because you picked a choice which actively goes against using passive income that you are so hard done by.

The only thing SRP covers is my wartime ships by the way. The reason I'm rolling in isk is because I put in the effort to actually learn my trade and do things right. Bear in mind that has happened since well before I was a member of a nullsec group. I still actively run and fund operations in both high and low sec space.

And I disagree with your measurements. As far as I can see it's a vastly inflated figure.


If null is so unused, why are the top 10 systems for NPC kills in the past 24 hours all in null:
1.Z-M5A1 (Period Basis)24977
2.NC-N3F (Deklein)21461
3.MVUO-F (Period Basis)19430
4.1M7-RK (Cobalt Edge)17384
5.S-DN5M (Deklein)17338
6.RO-AIQ (Oasa)16661
7.89-JPE (Etherium Reach)16141
8.30-D5G (Tenal)15406
9.UVHO-F (Querious)14631
10.P3X-TN (Malpais)14212

SRP only covers war losses for most groups. And if null groups were forced into smaller spaces, they'd only attract more attackers. Spreading out is a method of ensuring security, and is a choice that null alliances can make. If you don;t like it, go kick them out. But you can't You'd rather cry and cry until CCP come and kick people out of their space so you can live in a bit of your own. And you know what would happen? We'd kick you out and you'd be back to crying.

And if passive income was removed, we'd just have increased taxes and push for more renters, and the list above shows why we would continue to thrive without a problem.

GǪand they are lacking in sound reasoning or basis, as has been demonstrated.

No what's ironic is that you keep asking people to prove how a certain set of people don't lose out but when I've asked you to provethey lose out in a material way (i.e. a serious detriment to their gameplay) you have totally ignored my request.

Bear in mind that lowsec also has passive income. You just choose not to use it.

To be honest all I'm hearing here is that you hate passive income because some people get it and you don't. It really doesn't matter to us, since the vast majority of our income is from renters. Go ahead CCP, nuke moon goo. Let's see who's complaining when null groups harvest T2 materials for their own production only and T2 modules and ships become rare. Our SRP will still remain since renters don't make the vast majority of their profit from passive income.

I'm not going to get into another of these "Sov holders should be forced to use their space!" discussions, since they all end up with people trying to mechanically restrict the game to force people to play a certain way. I'll keep the sandbox thanks. If it bugs you so much, come and make us defend our space.

His predictions contradict the actual mechanics described in the blog; assumes irrational behaviour on behalf of ratters and their dependents; ignores significant boosts in play styles; and relies on misconceptions about how null industry works and what it's used for. He also completely missed the really big negative effect from the change GÇö the prediction that should be blatantly obvious.

So just so I understand where we've got to, Salvos has suddenly turned 12 and his list is still entirely unsubstantiated crap based off of no experience?

These EVE forums sure are entertaining.

EhGǪ slight modification: if you are a pilot sustaining yourself on looted minerals alone, you are now have to loot more to remain self-sustaining through these means.

That is a far cry from having your playstyle eliminated.

As for the effort involved in recouping the difference, much of it is just market adaptation or redirecting the same amount of effort to a slightly different kind of work.

So go back and read his posts and tell me they aren't the type of behaviour you would expect from a 12 year old.

I get it though. He agrees with you thus you must agree with everything he says and hate me and Tippia. Good job buddy!

You mean besides Skill Points, Manufactured items, Appreciation on investments, PI production, or the latest great investment of buy a PLEX and wait >30 days (or less) to bank a percentage.

This is EVE everyone can earn passive income risk free by essentially not playing; Isn't in-game inflation great?

But it's only beneficial to null sec industry for sale in null sec. It's a nerf to all the null players that loot their anoms in the same way it is to mission runners. It's this exaggerated idea that null sec is gaining hugely compared to everyone else, especially while WH space is going to have such an enormous relative buff.

Okay, let's put some perspective on gun-mining. My 'kill all' Vargur numbers show that I was getting about ~560K units of trit per hour of mission running. (~5.1M units of trit over 9 hours.) Post reprocessing nerf, that will drop to ~280K units of trit per hour.

According to EFT, a solo Hulk, can mine up to ~278K units of trit per hour: (1,547 ore per minute * (1000 trit / 333 ore) * 60 minutes / hour = ~278k trit per hour.

To Recap:

• Vargur: 560K units of trit per hour
• Vargur Post Nerf: 280K units of trit per hour
• Hulk: 278K units of trit per hour

So yes, gun miners will see a reduction in mineral income. However, that's probably not a bad thing.

Sigh... OK so because YOU can't work out logistics costs, they must be zero for the purposes of your calculations thus null is up 20%. Yes, I understand why you think that, you don't need to keep stating it. It's still wrong though because you are actively leaving out information.

Yeah, it's practically free right?

The amount of exaggeration you put into this is pretty insane. If we are to believe you, people in null leave trails of isk as they fly around, while in low sec, you have to work 24/7 to build a T1 frigate.

20-30m per direction with max skills and a cheap fuel source. That's if you have your own JF. You can double that if you don't.

Oh ok, so since 35M is the same as nothing, then stop crying about them devaluing a tiny piece of loot.

Seriously, this tinfoil hattery is hilarious, but it's tiring to respond to people like you. You are absolutely adamant that you are so ******* hard done by. And it's your own doing. You choose what you want to do, then you make up all sorts of bullshit figures and then you cry about them. **** off back to WoW and grind for your XP if that's what you want. If not, HTFU.

So "basic math" means there is no difference between 0 and 35 million? Where did you go to school?

No disagreements here. I think it just points out that:
a) gun-mining probably shouldn't be better than mining just on general game principles, (granted comparing a Vargur to a Hulk is a bit apples and oranges,)
b) safety is critical. Meaning, I wouldn't be running level 4s in a Vargur in low/null by myself,
c) safety requires people, e.g. scouts, people on gate camps, etc.,
d) extra people doing security cuts into profits, and
e) null PvE also has the problem of not being very scalable compared to missions.

Combine all that, and yeah, I can see why people tend to call for high-sec nerfs and/or null sec buffs.

IMHO, if you want to balance null versus high, then security is the key issue. If security is too low (e.g. low-sec) then industry is too expensive to thrive. If security is too high (e.g. high-sec) then min-maxing (e.g. all gank/mining mods and no tank) tends to make up for any advantages that less secure space (low/null) have. If security is too expensive, (e.g. locking down null with gate camps or preventing backdoor wormholes) then it's probably too frustrating in terms of player enjoyment to make industry work despite any bonuses or advantages.

tl;dr - We should probably look at why the British Empire or the US today was/is such an economic powerhouse. Or why North Korea has (more or less) developed nuclear weapons despite being so weak economically. And then incorporate those enabling principles into EVE's null-sec game mechanics.

6 billion isk of opportunity cost is not free. Literally to justify owning a JF over just building stuff in highsec with the isk, requires the JF to produce 300m+ of isk a day, and no the risks associated with it are not trivial, and to manage them requires 2 pilots that can fly it because I can assure you I cannot safely gate into highsec with this account in a JF. For reference the combination of opportunity cost, risk, fuel, pilot and alt account time sees the alliance service charge 200 or 300 isk/m3 for haul to/from jita.

Honestly you can't complain about basic maths if you don't understand such a basic accounting principle as opportunity cost.

.......so yeah like he said 6 billion up front.

It has been proven. It's a mathematical impossibility for the likelihood to be 0. If you were to line up ever possible combination of players in a line of infinite length, with each player having a a state of "represented" and "not represented" for an indeterminate number of players (0 to infinity), then every combination of states must be possible. So no players being represented is a possibility, all players being represented is a possibility, as is every single ratio of represented:not represented in between.

Feel free to ask any professional mathematician the same question and they will concur.

Sorry, CSM does not represent all players.
Are they an elected body, of course.

But to put in a real world context, ask the majority of the Iraqi populace if ****** *******'s Ba'ath Party represented them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_%28politics%29
Is now required reading for participation in this thread.

They represent those who have voted for them. Without votes, you cannot claim to represent anyone.

Just as I cannot claim to represent you, unless you vote for me.

The link was provided just to inform discussion. I didn't imply any more or less by adding it.
Wasn't directed to anyone in particular.

You can vote for whoever you wish. You can refuse to vote (as you did) all you want. You can feel happy and represented all you want by whatever choice or outcome that results from any of those.

You can feel that I represent you, if you wish. You can feel that your cat represents you, if you wish.

I feel that if I have not voted for someone, they do not have the mandate to represent me.
Do you have a problem with that?

I did not step over the posts describing mathematical probability.
I answered them with my own views, which it would seem you have actually stepped over since you think I did not address them.

CCP made a thread for player feedback about the CSM and while many sane people were pointing out why the RL connection is dumb you were busy ranting about goonspiracies. Basically its literally your fault RL is still involved with the CSM and you have no one to blame but, yourself.

Your point? Even if we ignore the fact that I am represented, again you are confusing a single scenario with mathematical probabilities (which encompass all outcomes for all scenarios for a given set of parameters). If you flip a coin once and it's tails, then you stop flipping, that doesn't mean the probability of a coin landing on heads is 0%. That's a single scenario.

Au contraire, I have an excellent claim to represent you to CCP: I have been elected by due process to the CSM, and that claim is backed up by CCP themselves. Whether you like it or not, they do consult me and the other 13 CSMs with respect to your interests, and believe it or not we represent you to the best of our ability and according to our beliefs and principles.

My claim to be your representative on the CSM (player advisory council to CCP) isn't a matter of opinion or debate: it's the simple truth. I am. Your consent or agreement is not required.

Furthermore, you're going to be represented whether you wish to be or not. Don't like that? Oh, that's too bad

So you have some options in front of you:

1) Continue sulking and whining and denying the plain facts of the situation, essentially keeping the status quo ante forever. AKA the "Cry more" option.

2) Drop the baseless ad hominems and Big Lie bullshit and engage with the people who are actually working on your behalf. AKA the "Deal with it" option.

3) Organise you and the people who agree with you, and start making yourself known and start giving other people enough reasons to trust you enough to vote for you that you get elected so you can do a much better job than horrible sellout null RMT bloc whores like me/ AKA the "Do something about it" option.

So tl;dr: Cry more, deal with it, or do something about it - it's your call.

They choose option D: Do option A but pretend like they are doing options B and C

I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.
Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The rules:
3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.

4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

12. Spamming is prohibited.

Spam is defined as the repetitive posting of the same topic or nonsensical post that has no substance and is often designed to annoy other forum users. This can include the words GÇ£firstGÇ¥, GÇ£go back to (insert other game name)GÇ¥ and other such posts that contribute no value to forum discussion. Spamming also includes the posting of ASCII art within a forum post.

26. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued.

Look who doesn't know what trolling is.

Go on. Tell us how it says "views", which despite meaning exactly the same thing means that he is right. "Haha! Victory!" Sound about right?

The problem being we all know they mean the exact same damn thing. If he tries to wiggle out with that one it's clear he's conceding defeat and trying to save face as much as possible.

You might want to look up the difference between elected and being appointed btw.

Tippia fail #258

Standard forum hiccup. It occurs with some (lack of) frequency. vOv

For a while, I apparently had the entire dev team as -10.

Sorry, was busy over in W&T

-sets up stall-

POPCORN, GETCHA POCORN, ITS LUVERLEE

Also telling someone who is acting like a moron that they are acting like a moron is not against the EULA or the TOS.

Look at the space lawyering. You lost the argument so now you are trying to get one of the winners banned.

But hes so cute, can I keep him??

GǪexcept that mission runners are hardly touched at all and that the biggest negative effect will be on the nullsec war machine.

Also, what is this GÇ£assault on highsecGÇ¥ you keep stammering about?

That's such a minute change to an even smaller portion of the playerbase. Losing the ability to near-instantly reconfigure entire fleet doctrines affects all of null.

The former can pretty trivially compensate for this small loss; the latter are entirely unable to (and that's kind of the point).

Either way, though, mission runners are most definitely not getting screwed and highsec is most definitely not a specific target for the change.

Because one can compensate and the other cannot.

It has nothing to do with security space, but with use cases. It's pretty much coincidence that the use case where it has a really huge effect happens to be in null. Fleet builders in high will have the same problem, but the fleets are much smaller (and they have more immediate access to replacements) so the impact isn't as great.

It is trivial for some and entirely correct for others.

You didn't even vote. Why are you even continuing discussing this.

Again, it's not a matter of location, but of use case.

GǪother than that some can trivially compensate for this loss whereas others cannot because their respective use cases differ.

GǪand in one case, they don't need the same scale of reconfigurations and have a more ready access to both materials and production services, whereas the other operates on a much larger scale and has less access. Thus the impacts will differ even though the numerical change is the same.

GǪif they use the mechanic to begin with and if we just look at the nerf itself without taking the mechanical application into account.

You seem to have the impression CCP is being secretive about this big announcement they just made. Obviously its way deeper than just gun-mining, the nerf to module reprocessing is just one of the easier changes to understand and explain. The change is fundamental and elegant, and splitting up reprocessing and compressing will certainly enrich the game and the economy. I don't think CCP has been secretive at all about their reasons.

How?

We will have the exact same amount of minerals on the market if not more.

You will mine and refine EXACTLY the same amount of minerals come summer as you do do now in high sec. If anything there will be even more minerals on the market.

Not only is the amount of minerals provided by gun mining tiny but we also have the new POS which will provide more and the 20% more from null stations.

Its not going to be an issue, if anything we will see more minerals on the market.

Minerals I mine are free right?

Those "free" minerals still have a value.

Anyone who builds using only melted junk is being very inefficient with their time. Its clear you do not manufacture anything.

There's obviously going to be less production if people retire their legions of 425mm railgun manufacturers. How can you possibly think that's a bad thing?

Or are you sad that you can't build 10bn isk of the wrong module and then press the big "whoops" button to undo everything?

You think the loss of minerals will hurt the nullsec market, but it also opens up huge opportunities for those same people, as there is more incentive to build in null than before. Or are you shocked that CCP is doing something that makes miners more valuable?

What 10% reduction?

You will mine the exact same amount in high sec in the summer as now. POS will be refining even more and Null up to 20% more. That 45% reduction in refining junk is so small it amounts to less than 5% of a mission runners takings if the mission runner kills and loots everything.

And while we are at it, how long do you think a ship building company will last if it makes no profit? Isk/hr is everything in this area.

so you're saying mining will be worth more meaning more people will go do it?


kind of like supply and demand?

Edit: causing market forces to do their thing

Go read the dev blog again, miners will be mining more so the is infact no change.

There is no loss for the rest of EVE.

Everyone gains from there being a reason to leave high sec for miners, refiners and industrialists.

You have already been told dozens of times that it is currently not more profitable to mine in null, hence why high sec has the vast bulk of both players and bots.

There is no loss to production, they will have just as much if not more minerals as they do now.

Especially when it's your math and it's wrong. Well done.

So is it 272% or 192% and how did you arrive at that figure? (figures)

Tee hee, I think someone has me on their ignore list! Either that or he thinks repeating something that's terribly wrong makes it more correct.

Did you even read my previous post? Which points out several enormous flaws in your "math"? Since you seem to have just dumped the same figure down without addressing a single one of the points and without showing any method of reaching your heavily flawed result.

If you have actual figures to post, I would have thought it easy to post the maths that led you to them. Rather than telling me your theory.

But why does m3 matter? m3 isn't the measure of income rate. Since Mercoxit is at most 60% the yield of any other ore, it's value over time is lower. It is worth less to mine.

Then you are comparing it to veld, the 2nd lowest ore, and ignoring that high sec miners have access to hedbergite and hemorphite. You claim that you have to use veld as it's the one that simplest to work out. That's bullshit. You compare it to veldspar because it's the one that makes your figures look the way you want them.

Your percentages may as well be random, since they are not based on fact. They are based on what seems to be a very limited understanding of mining combined with figures you hand pick to make your result look higher. You state your percentages like that's supposed to mean that NS players earn that % more, but you fail to take half of the relevant information into account, and heavily skew the other half.

With compression being move to ore, hisec ores can now be shipped to nullsec refineries. All that matters is the ore, not whether you're in hisec or nullsec. The stuff that hisec miners produce is made more valuable by ability to purchase it, ship it in compressed form, and refine it at better-than-empire rates.



What in the world makes you think that prices will be the same? That's just... absurd. Large stockpiles of materials in all their various forms will ensure that the economy flows smoothly.


PS mario how can you talk about t1 manufacturers reliant on reprocessed loot and then turn around and talk about mining for max profit in the same breath? I kind of see a contradiction there.

Here, I even made you a nice table. Just using the fuzzworks values and the average pull of a max skilled Mackinaw, based on Hedbergite for null, Pyroxeres (the highest valued sustainable high sec ore) and your precious Veldspar (just because I thought you might has a sad if I didn't).

You'll see that Hedbergite has a 34% increase over Pyroxeres, so a miner looking to go for maximum profitability on sustainable ore in high sec is nowhere close to as dire as you make out.

I'd be surprised if it changes null mining much at all.

I'm not really sure where you put that but I'm fairly sure I didn't see it. Did it get deleted?

And what's your point anyway? Why all the screaming about vastly incorrect null mining figures?

And have you looked at the ore size? Hedbergite at 706/unit is 235isk/m3, which is lower than it's mineral value. You'd also only get like 120k units on a jump freighter to ship it unless you used compression which is currently lossy and requires fuel to do. This is why it would not be sold as ore.

Arkonor would work out at 206isk/m3 based on your values there in ore form, which again is below mineral value.

What is this calculation even trying to do? You are working out the difference in total sales of Arkonor and Hedbergite? How does that relate to anything at all?

Secondly, how does the total market movement of Arkonor vs Hedbergite factor into anything? I'm beginning to think you don't even know how the markets work. Seriously, go get a 2nd opinion if you want, but the way you are calculating your figures is absolutely wrong.

yes some blitz... id still say more loot, just couse its almost as valuable, and gives alot more variation... people are playing for Fun after all... im curious though... you seem to know alot of this... do you do alot of LV4s, or is in a chat daily where people discuss doing Missions, or ask for help ?... etc... you know, i am , we in CAS are very active, both in high sec and in Null

When running level 4s you want to get as much LP as possible as that is where the isk is. We goons do a lot of research into whatever we do and this is the best way to go about missions. Idealy you want to finish missions by killing as few ships as possible in the quickest time you can manage. The only thing you loot are the mission items.

Customarily when there's a change in the game I either use it to my advantage if I can, or do something else...

Makes patching a lot less frustrating...

And yes I run level IV missions quite often, and yes I do salvage from those missions. I'll take a hit from this too, but you know what?

I'm not gonna get emotional about it.

Eve is a game, if you're taking it so seriously that you're going to have a hardcore rant about a nominal loss in minerals from processing waste loot.... Then perhaps the issue isn't the change made in the game, it's your reliance on a rule within a game that is flexible, dynamic and prone to change.

I'm not trying to be rude, and I'm not trying to be flippant, I just think that the focus need to change from "I can't believe they did this" to "ok this has been done, how do I benefit/deal with it".

I intend to have fun either way.

Have you ever considered that this is the reason for the change and is fully intended? I do believe that this was what happened when "drone poop" was removed and that CCP was rather satisfied with the results (even though prices for everything rose drastically).

Actually, after reading the developer notes, I would say that OP has it backward. I say this patch is, as unbelievable as it sounds, an attack on the null-sec blocks.

Consider:

1) Recently they had a historic landmark battle that destroyed a new record number of super-capital class ships. These ship will now have to be replaced, which in turn means that the null-sec blocks are experiencing a massive spike in their mineral import needs.

2) When it comes to mining minerals, null-sec blocks are known to only employ one of two attitudes. The former being that it is best done by bot fleets, but this can apparently be completely disrupted by something called a "cloaky neut." The second being that it is easier for them to just exploit their high income spawns for ISK and then buy the required minerals in high security space (read: Jita) and then import them back home.

3) The preferred method for importing minerals from Jita was not to actually buy or move the minerals themselves, but instead to exploit game mechanics by purchasing large numbers of various tech one modules, importing those, and reprocessing them at a high skill level. Apparently a finished module takes up far less space than the minerals required to make it, and with a high enough skill level said modules could be reprocessed at either 100% efficiency or a number so close to it as to make no difference.

Thus finished goods were being used an alternative form of ore compression via current reprocessing rules.

4) You may notice that Rorqual ore compression rules are also being handled in the same patch. Coincidence?

Conclusion: Nerfing reprocessing is actually meant to force the null-sec blocks to either waste more money trying to hoover up all of the minerals out of the high-sec block (which, ironically, they claim serves no real purpose) or force them to do the unthinkable and actually spend some time in mining barges themselves.

As far as high-sec is concerned, overall this will actually mean more ISK coming in because the null-sec blocks (who have all the ISK) will be forced to spend more to buy more things from you in order to get the same amount of minerals. Not to mention the overall spike in mineral prices for exporting to the null-sec blocks whom are, obviously, high-sec's biggest customers (not that they would ever admit to this, of course).

CCP hates us because they made miners more valuable? wtf? Nullsec blocks are going to buy compressed ore instead of 425mm railguns. If they weren't mining before they certainly won't have to do so now. Production will meet demand, and mining will pick up to meet the demand for materials. All motivated by either spiking or gradually shifting prices, depending on speculation, and occuring over a period of months. I don't know why you think this such a terrible thing.

As a relevantly sized market, they don't. And you've demonstrated your math, needless to say your math and the math that actually portrays the situation are strikingly different. If you aren't willing to actually understand basic game mechanics, even when they are explained to you, you'll continue to wrongly assume people are making terrible points, just like you'll continue to assume that your choice to grind up junk to sustain yourself is the best one available.

See where the problem lies here? I'll be clear: it's not the changes, it's your lack of understanding and bad choices.

It's does, as a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny minority of producers who don't realise that they've made the worst possible choice. It's like how cruiser miners still exist. How does them getting nerfed equate to "a net nerf to everyone"?

With the 45% reduction to gun mining, in order to maintain their CURRENT production rate, those gun miners will now have to buy off the market or mine their own minerals. Yes or No?

In theory, yes

No. Those will be replaced by the fact that overall refining amounts will be increased. The small amount of extra minerals gained from high sec POS refining alone will counter the mineral loss from gun miners.

Yup.

Ish, it's actually 72.36% and 1381.95 and works out to 999.9 trit but we can let that slide. So we'll go with 18% for arguments sake.

Facepalm. Yes. Is that really your argument?

Except your math is wrong, since you are applying it to both sides equally, which means you are assuming that gun mining account for 50% of the minerals in the game, which it does not. Last time CCP released the figures from that, gun mining accounted for 10% of the minerals in the game.

So let's break that down in nice and easy primary school math. Say I have 90 gallons of water and you have 10 gallons of water. The total amount of water between us is 100 gallons right? (90+10).

Now let's do our percentages, so you're goes down to 55%, and might goes up to 118%. So yours becomes 10 * 0.55 = 5.5 gallons. Mine becomes 90 * 1.18 = 106.2 gallons. Now you can see that the amount of water between us is 111.7 gallons (106.2 + 5.5), or a net increase of 11.7%.

Then on top of all of that, even if your figures were fact, how does more mining mean that it's a net nerf to the game? A whole new section of mining will have been opened up in the form of WH mining and industry which was previously very difficult and very lossy.

No. Just reducing the number of free and universally available lines to sensible levels and rewarding those who invest in creating lines of their own and/or increasing the number of lines you get for making those investments. Most likely, both will happen (largely since both need to happen).

Mineral availability isn't being reduced, though, nor would it have any connection with a required reduction in free manufacturing facilities. And either way, reducing those manufacturing lines would certainly not keep any inflation at bay.

We discussed this. At length, remember? You spewed a lot of flawed math and overestimated by a massive margin the number of minerals from gun mining.

Because there's very little to suggest that it'll affect mission runners as an aggregate demographic. Simply because there are so many ways in which it will completely pass by vast portions of that demographic.

GǪand how does any of that show that mission-runners, as a whole, would be seriously affected by this change? Most of what you listed don't even have anything to do with it, and the one thing that does is left so devoid of context and meaning that it tells us nothing either.

I don't know exactly what the changes are. As I said, I haven't run a mission in years.

Thanks for the heads up. Since I do dabble in the building industry, I guess I should hit the dev blogs and see what's in the pipe.

Mr Epeen

It will be more than that, at least in any missions I run.
I run in Amarr space, and get a ton of rich loot missions.

Like I said, CCP could crunch the numbers and tell us precisely what the impact is, but there is zero chance the cartels will let that information get out.

What exactly do you think happened when gun-mining of drones was removed altogether ?

(note gunmining drones was paying the equivalent of bounty in minerals, and was a far larger proportion of mineral supply than module gunmining is).

To be fair, you must admit that was largely because, at the time, less people mined than simply farmed drones.

This meant that a lot of the pathway to the supply dried up overnight.

Such a thing is not the case here.

Nobody is going to force them into null.

This change does not really affect production.
At most, it affects logistics, but only for the better.

the 3.7% drop in mission runner income from minerals is swallowed up by the up to 20% increase from null sec plus all of the POS which also provide more than we get now from refining.

There will be no reduction in mineral supply, it is simply shifting a little more from mission runners to miners.

To put this into perspective, at one point, drone goo represented 23% of all the minerals coming into the game, including such standouts as 40% of all zyd and 51% of all nocx. When that source was removed, what happened? Not much. Harvesters shifted source, producers kept producing, and everyone was much happier with gunmining taking the lung-shot it so desperately needed.

If this change were to somehow generate a 15% drop in mineral influx (and I would really like to see a authoritative source that demonstrates how meta-1/2 drops somehow represent a quarter of the minerals being harvested in the game), then not only will things go on pretty much as normal, just like last time, but it also means that gunminng had survived far to long wheezing along with its remaining lung and that a second lung-shot is in orderGǪ

GǪand the source for that is?

GǪbut again, that's not what the numbers actually represent. You have no way of separating gun mining from the numbers CCP provided as a source for the graph.

You both answered your own question AND rammed your foot right in the gob.
When gameplay changes happen - people notice. Shout loud enough and they REALLY notice. Then they play, game continues, etc

Because quoting something vague from six years ago now counts as facts in what is happening this summer...

A 3.7% drop in some mission runners income is not a huge nerf. After all, you were positively giddy with the 5% nerf to all null sec anom runners.

It is if you ask Dindin.

GǪand he wasn't addressing you either so that turns out fine.

GǪbased on numbers you concocted out of misunderstandings, ignorance, and pure assumptions. In actuality, there's very little to suggest that anything of the kind will actually happen, and the one thing we do know is that production capacity will increase as a direct result of compression being moved away from the production sphere.