Typical tactics. Null sec cartel propagandists want the thread closed, so they hotdrop their thread derailers.

The only reason you 'accept' this is because you know it won't really be more than an slight inconvienence to you.... To a mission runner with a certain playstyle this essentially means the end of his/her playstyle. Which is not inherently a bad deal, I don't think this will make a huge impact on missioning as a whole, most of the good income for me has come from selling meta modules and LP.

No, I think we'll have our cake and eat it too.

Look, it turns out he is just like the rest of the griefers, who gets off ruining the game play for others.

I can only shudder at what else lies in store for high sec in the coming days as more assaults on it are announced.

Now lets all please retuen to the actual topic, which is the non-ore/ice refining efficiency nerf, and its ramifications and lacking justifications.

But why the scrap refinement efficiency nerf?

Nobody has answered this.

Ill wire you 10mil for your effort if the reference does indeed answer the question as thanks for the help.

What other mechanics provide the functionality to get 100% back from what has been produced?

But this is false and besides the point.

The market for reprocessing trash is not related to compression in anyway shape or form

Why would anyone skill into scrap refining now?

@Tippia:

Your evasive reply and refusal to address key facts and ramifications is now sufficient to concern me that there are indeed vested interests in these proposed changes and that all attempts to objectively discuss the actual issues will be deliberately stonewalled and sabotaged.

As is in your sig, I dont care enough to argue on decisions that have already been made outside my purview, with vested individuals who demonstrably have no intent to discuss objectively.

They don't want perfect refine on modules or hulls. Get over it already. Loss is good for the game, and making mistakes and massively overproducing before tieracide should not be rewarded with perfect escape options or minerals that didn't exist before.

Compression is unrelated to people refining minerals from ships/modules either produced by players or brought in from wrecks.

Compression means nothing to a mission/ratter/plexer when he decides whether to bring back the trash he finds or not.
It also means nothing to a non-ore/ice refiner who is buying what those players bring back in order to turn a small profit by reselling the minerals.

You are again confusing two separate issues.

Wait, removing industry skill involved compression in favor of a (nearly) skilless one so that a handful of people have a incentive to train refining to high levels to use exclusively in null seems logical to you?

How so?

What the **** is wrong with you? You won't let me walk away and leave you to have your way?

The "mining point of view" is ****ing months outdated. What miners had to go through then has no bearing on the current status quo. The situation is different today, and it is on todays situation that changes are to be decided. Otherwise its like saying "Look at it from the Jews perspective 50 yrs ago". Who fking cares.

You contradict yourself. You speak of "speaking objectively" and then disqualify that by identifying yourself as brand new.

Oh, and another slight boost for Tech 1 producers if no one has mentioned it in this threadnaught.

1. The compression blueprints I've been researching the PE on at my POS, being now obsolete, can be discarded? I understand they'll no longer be needed for compression.

The compression change is fine. [GǪ]
The superfluous additional change that reduces non-ice/ore refinement efficiency below ice/ore, with no recourse for increasing that cap, is not fine

Then please explain it to me so that I might understand.

Because all I see coming out of it atm, is a net devaluing of all non-ice/ore refinables in the universe

I didn't want the last word except as to say "I no longer wish to discuss this matter with you".

Explain please why someone would skill non-ore/ice refining post change?

I stopped posting arguments before I asked to please be let to walk away.

You are aware tho, that there are players playing the profession of a Looter/Salvager, following mission runners, ratters or anom runners?

Those same reasons are no longer pertinent or profitable.

I dont know where you come from, or who you are, but where I come from, its not possible to walk away when some c*** is shouting insults at your back.

People don't do it for the isk champ. The rat for the isk smash mods for the ore.

Building ships and mods...to use.

You will see that I am right Tippia

I don't know why you so vociferously try to contrive and whitewash the repercussions and ramifications of this change.

I don't find any of your explanations or justifications for it either valid or actually even RELEVANT to it.

Nothing will be the same in the non-ore/ice refinement profession after this change.

Speculation. Citation needed.

Just complaining that CCP seems content on killing newbie friendly professions. But hey **** new players right.

Its cute that you think that, but most salvagers/reprocessors are newbs.

Yet there is absolutely no reason to even touch reprocessing.

Name me one reason why reprocessing is poor for the game.

The sheer fact that the efficiency change results in a universal devaluing of the base mineral reprocessed value of ALL non-ice/oremitems in the entire game already substantiates that unequivocably.

There are no issues. You can't even name one.

What that the market part is a burden.

So what is your reason hun?

Did I miss any of the complaints or did I catch them all?

It is a fact

This directly means there is less profit (from the already tiny amount) in bothering to bring loot back from wrecks.
This means there are less reprocessable items brought to market for purchase for reprocessing for a small profit in minerals.
But not only are there LESS brought to market, but you also MAKE LESS from every item brought to market.

Now I must ask why do the costs of ships have to increase? What is the reasoning behind that?
Why after balancing ships MUST CCP Increase the cost of said ships?

Tippia, my dear, you can argue till you are blue in the face and your already puffy eyeballs extrude, that these are not "substantiated"

You are merely arguing that they have not been substantiated (read: made real in the literal sense of the word) YET.

Do you acknowledge that the change reduces the mineral base value of ALL non-ice/ore refinables in the entire game?

It is irrational to choose non-ice/ore reprocessing over ice/ore refining after this change.

It is also irrational to waste time on bringing trash to market after this change.

It is irrational to claim that the base mineral value of all non-ice/ore items in the entire game is NOT reduced by the change, when the change explicitly and absolutely reduces the base mineral yield from those very same items.

You get more minerals from ore refinement. Hence it would be irrational to not choose ore reprocessing.

It is not the same amount of work.

The reprocessed mineral base value of ALL non-ice/ore refinable items is reduced in the change

consider if NO item had a reprocessing value.

Anyone who trains this skill if this change goes live as it is, is a ******.

slow down there

I think the market price will stabilize at a minimum around the value of the reprocessed materials, so i can't really see the point in training the skill, unless you are actually interested in getting the materials.

That's pretty much the way it is now. It's just faster to reprocess and sell 7 stacks instead of 100. I'll be interested to see which meta modules are in use, so when their price drops they are kept at a level above reprocessing value due to demand. I'd imagine a fair few meta 3s will fall into this category.

It's also going to be a question of - do you reprocess/sell, or do you hold out for the meta rebalance?

Only one talking about income here is you bud. I produce my own ships that I use in PVP from LP and Mission Loot as my mineral supply. Self Sufficient operation. I will now have to devote about 40% more time to PVE because of this change. I don't sell my ****, I keep it for me, I am greedy. It doesn't cost me anything but time, but now I have to invest more time into PVE, so I can enjoy PVP.

And I am not the only one who lives like this. Pretty much everyone I associate in low and null sec is pissed off about this change to Reprocessing because it disrupts our capacity to remain an effective PVP force.

It would be irrational, as that time is better spent skilling further ore refinement,

What.

There are many items of which the only value is in their reprocessing.

Not to a Reprocessor it wouldnt

It will kill the reprocessing profession.

And for no real reason at all.

Only a moron would skill into it instead of investing that time into ice/ore refining.

Wheras any idiot stupid enough to waste even a second skilling into reprocessing instead, will be faced with a market empty of reprocessable goods due to players no longer bringing in their loot, due to the universal reduction in their effective mineral value as a factor of the reduced efficiency in reprocessing them.

No incentive for it

Yes.

Yes

Yes, you earn more as a Refiner than a Reprocessor!

I currently don't need any more characters than I have, and I shouldn't need more than 1 to be able to enjoy the game.

youdon'tsay.jpg

You dont have to!

They wouldn't! Hence, they will choose Refinement over Reprocessing!

And why waste resources on aquiring Reprocessable goods at a low efficiency, when you can invest those same resources into aquiring Refinable goods at high efficiency!

The thing about ship prices is CCP didn't need to change them to require extra minerals.

I didn't say it was not possible to do so. I said it was stupid to do so.

Why would people choose to earn less by investing time and ISK into Reprocessing, when they can instead invest time and ISK into Refining for better yields in a more robust market?

False :) You are operating under the old efficiency sets.

They are both as efficient!

Now tell me, what is more efficient. get 50 units of trit from Reprocessing 400 ISK of materials, or get 100 units of trit from Refining 400 ISK of materials?

They didn't need to touch the pricing at all.

heh what ever you say lady. Go read up on self correcting economies then come back and tell us what they HAD TO do.

It is stupid to earn less

They earn more by doing what I suggested, than by what you suggested.

And the pricing of the mineral source that is all non-ice/ore reprocessable items just took a nose dive due to the efficiency reduction.

Are you claiming that 100 trit from 400 ISK is less efficient than 100 trit from 400 ISK?

I wouldn't.

Or did you forget the part of tiericide where they added "extra minerals" to the BPC's removing the potential for "buy and flip"

No reason other than

It still de-values all the reprocessable items in the universe, as a function of reprocessing them.

And as less items reprosessed, this invariably leads to inflation, because there is no margin for profit unless some idiot lists items at well below their reprocessible yield, which just now took a nosedive.

Again, the question arrises "why" implement this change, when as you yourself correctly observe, the 425 phenomenon is already corrected by the other two core changes.

Why this one additionally?

No, it devalues the reprocessing value of ALL reprocessable items.

In this specific instance, it does, because the reduced yield from reprocessing now falls far behind the cost of production.

1) False
2) Wat? Pseudo-economics much? Are we creating "conceptuality" here?
3) Extra materials are not a result of reprocessing efficiency.
4) We have already established that the % of mineral income from looting through reprocessing is tiny
5) Wat.
6) It also means that that is subsequently the only actual use for reprocessingGǪ

Lol. It negatively affects the reprocessed mineral value of every single reprocessible item in the entire universe.
Hows that for "doesnt even negatively affect anything that matters on the scale of things"?

Should reprocessing efficiency be reduced? Yes. Should it be reeuced as much as proposed?

Tippia, repeating your fallacies and stonewalling may work on your bf and idiots, but not on me.

I already went 5 rounds of this kind of circular and discursively dishonest posting with you where you contradict yourself and repeat yourself

In my perception, it effectively kills it as an isk making activity, amd relegates it to a correctional role for manufacturers who find they for one reason or another need to reprocess their own production in order to reapply it at a loss for a more lucrative production venture.

I simply cannot fathom why CCP continues to ruin the gaming experience for mission runners and new player miners who don't have the refine skills, nor money for implants, to mitigate the devastation being wrought by these changes.

It has always been more profitable to be a miner in NS. It has always been more profitable to mission in NS, it has always been more profitable to run anoms in NS, it has always been more profitable for Moongoo in NS, it has always been more profitable for PI in NS

Free is quite relative. But hey lets ignore how NS has higher profit margins for EVERYTHING across the board. Filthy HS folks getting stuff for free.

Roughly 3 times the profit for doing the exact same thing.

Door swings both ways. It is far safer to operate in NS than HS most because you are allowed to shoot first. If Profit was based on Risk/Reward. LS would be the most profitable space in the game. But profit is based on Time/Reward, which is why NS is leagues ahead of anything in HS or LS.

We talked about it yesterday....this is an arbitrary change for the sake of making a change.

What is stopping them?

If rewards in NS were not worth the Effort or time invested, then why do people bother with them?

No ultimately it is Sov space holders who complain, and demand that they get every expanding increases into already very wide income gaps, while giving nothing up.

Like I said yesterday if CCP really wanted to fix this non-issue they would be nerfing this **** out of passive income stream that is MoonGoo.

@Lucas Kell: Neither you nor Tippia is doing the proposed changes or discussion of them any good. You actively attack and harangue players with differing opinions in an altogether offensive manner.

I find some peoples "accepted" treatment of Dinsdale to be more demeaning of yourselves, than it is of him.

Thanks for proving my observations correct.

So when does the null sec cartel get NPC manufacturing slots in high sec (and likely low sec) wiped out?

If I am insane, and my posts are the ravings of a madman, then why don't you sadly shake your head at the loon, and ignore the entire thread, instead of constantly opposing me and insulting me?

CCP and the cartels are out to wreck the high sec, the incubator and home to the largest segment of the player base

Well, so the null sec cartels say.

What I will enjoy is when CCP and the cartels actually DO wreck high sec completely

If null sec is so poor, and every smart null sec player has high sec alts to support their null sec lifestyle, there is going to be a fairly decent segment of redundant high sec characters, where the null sec main already can do what the high sec char can do.
Maybe not in mining and manufacturing, but in ratting and exploration most certainly.

Yeah, the more I think about it, CCP is going to find out how ecosystems work very soon, and the cartels will just point and laugh at the dev's who merrily went along with this assault.

No way null sec players would create alts whose sole purpose was to ruin high sec.

Why do you even bother?

I will say something insightful, brilliant, and speaks to the truth of what is happening to Eve.

Null sec cartel apologists and propagandists

I think, even if I agreed with your arguments, I would bee annoyed because of the 'Too many quotes' limitation of the forums.

Hey, not my problem.
I keep my message clear and concise.

Null sec cartels

have conspired to ruin any profitability in high sec

Those who stand to lose from the changes are::
-Reprossecors.
-Mission/rat/plex runners
-Entities currently dependant on what mission/rat/plex runners bring in.
-High sec industrialists who now have to compete with null industrialists who have a wider margin owing to the better refinement efficiency in their native space
-Miners without personal access to advanced refining facilities, in high sec as their raw output will be suppressed by the margins of compression services, in null sec because you will have to pay for the privilege as rent, which suppresses your profits.

However they do not disprove that they are the ones who stand to lose from the proposed changes, infact they merely reinforce that they are.

They are losses, from the subjective perspective of those individuals.

That you think the loss is mitigated by resultant player refocusing into other activities as a result of the change, does not change the fact that the reason they are doing so is a result of the changes causing them a loss in their current activities.

@Tippia: Go ahead and analyse the list of beneficiaries as well.

Or are you seriously trying to posit that very change to the game does not result in a net gain and loss for specific activities?

Are you claiming that nobody stands to lose and nobody stands to gain from the changes?

Its a simple question.

Are you saying you will not answer it?

Sorry, can you please link me where you answered the question?

So am I then correct in understanding that you think nobody stands to lose and nobody stands to gain from these changse?

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "nullsec war planners"?

I see.

But the reduction in the mineral value of wreck loot does not constitute a loss to players who reprocess those?

Good. I'm glad we can finally agree then that there are those who stand to gain, and those who stand to lose from the changes.

No, it means you came at me trying to claim there was no loss or gain for these individuals.

You have not addressed his assessment of gainers and losers, though it is contradictory to yours.

Lucas: No, my list is accurate. Not complete, but correct in those items it does list.

Tippia claimed everyone else gains, aside from null war preppers.

I don't need to be a "member" of a group to argue for or against a change that affects them.
Is that the premise you are operating under?

Third, once I have cleared that extraneous and unnecessary garbage out of your post, I am neither for or against the change.
I am simply interested in discussing it. Is there something wrong with that?

That is of course, until the null sec cartels

set their eyes on those income streams, and get CCP to alter the game mechanics so the cartel leaders can profit from wormholes as they do with null sec.

that is really going to hurt the wh groups. Once again, courtesy of the null sec cartels.

No, because you are forgetting to include the better refining yield of those ores/ice, when brought compressed to null.

Thanks again for the ad hominem, hyperbole and uncivil conduct.

To pass the deliberate gish gallop, my list, once again:

There is no way the ore/ice price in high-sec can exceed the mineral value of that same ice/ore when brought to null for refining at 20% better yield.

The paragraph to which that was addressed was entirely ad hominem, hyperbole and lack of civility.

The transport costs of this compressed ice/ore do not exceed that of what was the cost previously of 425mm, and is in all ways more efficient.

Null manufactures from this, to the result of a "surplus" volume of product that is greater than any high-sec industrialist can produce from the same amount of initial investment in ice/ore, because they refine MORE minerals out of that same amount of ice/ore (bought at the same price as high-sec industrialists are buying it).

A) You think compressed ice/ore will cost 20% more than raw? lol No.
B) Almost all null entities are fully capable of doing their own ore compression. It was possible even with 425mms, and is even easier now with ice/ore.

Factually the paragraph was filled with ad hominem, hyperbole and lack of civility.

Lucas and Tippia, my dear sir and madame,

-First by removing gun compression as a silly exploit of a broken system to feed nulls mineral needs.
This is achieved through the reprocessing change.

Net result?
Null improved as a manufacturing and refining sector, which is THE WHOLE POINT.

These changes are all well and fine. They do what they are supposed to do.
But if you don't understand that they are specifically related to improving null, then you've really missed the boat on this one.

That's where you are wrong. And that is the whole point of it.
To bring null manufacturing (enabled by the refinement efficiency) to a competitive level with highsec.

You have a female avatar. You have chosen to portray yourself as female, and I will address you as such.

All of which I ACTUALLY included in my considerations and post, literally. ACTUALLY.

Nothing you have said here discounts, disproves or adds anything that I haven't already said.

HERPADERPA DERRR

Oh so if it does not enable it, then it actually disables it?

Its one or the other.

What is the ternary of enables and disables?

GUYS, STOP THE PRESS!
ACCORDING TO LUCAS AND TIPPIA THIS IS ACTUALLY A NULL NERF!
HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN?!

Oh, so its a "fact" that 20% better refining efficiency does nothing to enable or disable Null manufacturing?

I'm just not stupid enough

not to recognise the benefits the changes concretely result in for null.
You can deny them till you are blue in the face, but its ridiculous to think or perceive otherwise.

Sorry, I was wrong!
Tippia and Lucas have shown that the changes infact do not benefit null in anyway shape or form!

Its funny that your vociferous and pathological resistance to any and all anti-null commentary has come full circle to the point that you perceive even objective assessment and support of the benefits of a change to null, as being anti-null.

The entire impetus of these changes is for improving null, yet you are arguing against that

Madness.

Tippia and Lucas:
Please, take a moment and outline to us what you perceive as the benefits to null from these changes?

Both Tippia and Lucas refuse to outline what they perceive as the benefits to null from these proposed changes.

Its a simple request

Not what they are paid for it seems.

Oh! And another "individual" taking it to have been addressed to them.

Please list how the proposed changes benefit null.

Thats not a list or relevant to the proposed changes.

Point out where on the list it says that " it would make null sec competitive with high sec", as you claim?

But if you read them carefully they do infact

My list remains accurate in as far as the items it contains

Nobody has disproven that reprocessors lose.

Nobody has disproven that mission/rat/plex runners lose

Nobody has disproven that those dependant on what they bring in lose.

Nobody has disproven that high sec mindustrialists nownhave to compete with nulls 20%incressed mineral yield

Nobody has disproven (and infact Baltec1 has confirmed it in Dev thread) that miners without refining or access to a refinery lose out.

Sorry Tippia, did you say something?

My proof is in the proposed changes.

You are.

I'm not bothered by the changes.I already know who's losing out.

No, but I just answered them above.

I don't see any evidence there disproving any of part of the list.

Still not a single item disproven:

Ironically, the industrial guys where using the same reprocessing efficiency as a tool to recycle their own products though.

The term "ironic" fits it perfectly.

And please, stop with the like farming with alts.

I agree completely.

Yet these two idiots try to ask for proof for the repercussions of a changes that have not even happened yet.

Let me rephrase, my dear Tippia.

These are my PREDICTIONS of the results of the change:

Actually his predictions are pretty spot on.

Tippia predicted everyone gains, and only null war preppers lose.
--This was proven categorically false and inadequate by the fact that alone that mission/rat/plex runners lose in potential profits.

Lucas's list had only the following to say:
-WH dwellers gain.
-Junk looters lose.
---Yeah. Ok man. If you say so!

Certainly they can't be more pathetic and misleading that Tippias or Lucas ones provided at the top.

Hey look. Its the guy who thinks the ramifications from these changes amounted to the following:
-WH dwellers gain
-Junk looters lose

Oh and its that chick who did that amazing analysis of the result of the changes!

Let me try to recall it in all of its magnificence.
Aaah yes, I remember now. Here it is.

"Everyone gains and only null war preppers lose"

What if we combine their lists into a superlist.

Don't make me go dig up where you submitted the above as your list.

If you really think mine is so terrible and false, then provide your own and better one.

Its blatantly obvious guys come on!

The only real downside to this whole thing is that Scrap reprocessing is getting a 45% nerf and that is going to directly impact a pile of LowSec and Nullsec production individuals. That is the ONLY down side. Essentially if you are a self sustaining pilot you are no longer self sustaining.

Ok. Here it is:

As for Lucas as well:

Um no you have to be able to take and hold POS in all regions of space to maximize your potential. If you can not do that then you will not be able to recoup the difference.

As for scrap reprocessing, yes it is eliminated. It is now infinitely more profitable to just spend you isk on buying minerals from the market and getting them delivered. There is no reason at all to loot wrecks any more, and if people do then they are just ******* a plastic bag in a wind storm.

Nullsec is getting at maximum a 20% increase to refining efficiency over everyone else. I don't understand what else you can call it other than a leg up over everyone else. No one else is going to be able to do refining as well as a maximum PC Null Sec player.

20% is a pretty big difference.

IE. A big buff to NS. Assuming you put in the EFFORT to get it.

It is important to remember the very small % of the player base that has actually voted for them.
Representation is proportional to how many votes they get, and since the overwhelming majority of players have not voted for them, they cannot be said to represent the interests of those who have not voted for them (ie: the overwhelming majority of the EVE player base).

You are confusing sampling with elective representation.

You cannot prove that it is, therefore there is no onus for disproving it.

Tippia, I lay claim to represent your interests.

According to your logic, you have no means to disprove that

You fail to understand both the mechanics of elective representation, as well as the scientific process of constructing and defining a sample grouping that is proportinately an accurate representation of the whole.

Tippia, was that an intentional misrepresentation of the significance that can be attributed to sampling, or did you just accidentally overlook the importance of the sample being random?

Good try, but you missed the important bit.

I don't have to support my claim

Are you trying to hold me to a higher standard than yourself?

Tippia, I hereby claim to represent you.

Okay, you win

https://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/mks/statmistakes/biasedsampling.html

Ah, I see the source of your confusion. You are mixing up statistical representation with elected representatives.

You could probably even fool some people with that. Clever bit of sophism there.

From someone who thinks sampling in this context is the same as standing at a supermarket cheese sampling stand, that just further proves my point.

By your logic

@Tippia: Prove the CSM council elected by 14% of the population, represents the entire population.

does an elected representative have a mandate to represent the non-voting population

Then there is no grounds to claim that it does.

I know what you are saying, I'm just pointing out that you are wrong.

All they can be is representative of the subset group "people who vote".

Heh, what did I say before about holding other people to a higher standard?

Go on, indulge us. Post your proof.

You claim that the CSM, which was elected by only 14%, of the population CAN represent the entirety of the population.

Prove it.

And, once more, you are wrong.

It isn't a case of Can Gëá must Gëá is; just can't.

Your extrapolation can only ever apply to the subset sampled.

You have not proven that it is possible.

I have not suggested anything.

Yeah, and the flying spaghetti monster *may* get elected to the next CSM.

For the assertion to be true a total of 0 players out of the entire playerbase must hold views not represented
For the assertion to be false a total of 1 player out of the entire playerbase must hold views not represented

I didn't say it was likely, just that it was a possibility. Much in the way you justify what you say.

She has not proven this claim.

It CANNOT be true, as long as I do not acknowledge that I am fully represented.

Where have you proven this?

Furthermore, you cannot prove it, because I, as one part of the entire EVE population, do not recognise and have not empowered any member of the CSM panel as representative of me.

What you claim to be true, cannot be true, as long as I exist as part of the entire EVE population.

Actually you should be using the modal verb "could" rather than "can" as you are expressing a possibility rather than an ability.

You cannot prove this, because of my refusal to acknowledge that I am represented, and as I am a part of that entire EVE population.

Then you have to prove that once I am removed, nobody else will likewise block the first claim from being true.

Its not funny.

You cannot prove that it will ever happen.

Then where is your proof that it CAN happen?

You have not proven that that set of conditions can ever be possible.

Let's just agree that the situation *could* arise with a probability of 1/(total number of actual players) and be done with it.

It *could* happen, it is just bloody unlikely.

Importantly, it isn't the case right now and any assertion to the contrary would need to be backed up. The very minimum would be a bar graph but extra merit will be awarded for a pie chart made from actual pie and sent to my home address.

Though given how far he seems to misunderstand the business of running orders for melt, (ie when I pointed that I've actually run that business, and his margins were way off, and that the other new businesses (refining, compression, dovetail nicely with melt collecting) I don't really remember him doing anything other than stamp foot about the devaluation of a skill.

You have not proven that those conditions can/could ever come to pass.

Its fairly apparent I am literate

You have not proven that that set of circumstances can/could ever come to pass.

Its a simple question.

Not sure if I know that skill. The existing BPOs don't have it as a prereq, the rorq doesn't have it as a prereq, and the industrial core doesn't have it as a prereq. My alt is 1 day or so out of a rorq, has all the processing skills bar the industrial core one and doesn't seem to have it. It may have been victim to the cleanup of skills.

As to the 1 person not being represented, that is sufficient, in current context, to evidence that the CSM does not represent the entirety of the EVE population.

Calculate and prove to me then the realistic probability of the CSM panel representing the entirety of the EVE population.

All it takes, is one dissenter.

Even if they disagree, so long as at least one member of the CSM holds the same viewpoint they are still represented

You have not invalidated that particular case always being the case, however.

There is no figure small enough to represent that probability. That is called 0.

You cannot prove that the conditions you speculate can ever come to pass.

There are many probabilities which are zero.

This is one of them.

You just proved it for me.

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

You don't represent me.
You can claim you do all you want, but you don't.
I did not vote for you.
I have not mandated, entitled or empowered you in anyway shape or form to represent me.

He can sit on the council and claim "I represent Salvos Rhoska" all he wants.
Just as I can sit at a bar and proudly exclaim I represent every one in EVE, including Malcanis.

Neither will be true.

Good for you!

But you don't represent me.

Why are so many of you angered by this?

He represents me about as much as

I'm here enjoying the service of the game

Edit, Malcanis AND Tippia for CSM 9, 10 if it's too late for 9.

I do not recognise or acknowledge that he represents me in anyway shape or form.

Doesn't change my position on the matter one bit.

My relationship with CCP is determined by the EULA, the law and the money I pay to enjoy their service.
Malcanis or his soapbox doesn't enter into that relationship in the least bit.

It's tempting, but I'm honestly finding time constraints are a problem, what with all this representing that I'm not doing.

Uhm no.
No mention of him representing me in the EULA or that link.

Random guy somewhere in the world with a soapbox as a reward for a tiny % of votes.

Yeah, this guy really represents me.

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

Also WTF does Tippa have a Blue standings cross? I haven't given standings.

Tippia, mon cher, Im making my voice heard all the time here :)

Nowhere in the EULA does it state that any individual other than myself has any right to claim to represent me.

Bottom line, sec mission runners are getting screwed, again, and the null sec cartels are gloating because they know this is far from the last assault on high sec

And I have not even begun to get into the havoc wreaked in low skill miners.

No need to try and start that lie up again. Biggest impact is on anyone who uses scrap to turn profits. Everyone else is coming out ahead, assuming they put in the effort.

Why is it trivial for one group and not the other?

The reprocess change doesn't play favorites in any security space.

Is it trivial?
Or
Is it excessive?

Nah its a 45% nerf EVERYWHERE.

It doesn't impact anyone anymore than anyone else.

Building 1000 ships in Null or 1000 ships in highsec requires the same costs, they return the same costs if those ships become "useless".

That is why it is a blanket nerf. It impacts EVERY Person in this game, equally.

Your style of play is now completely unviable.

You are faced with at best, 45% of your loot income wiped out.

You can that the null sec cartels

as they strike another blow for the "little guy".

Sorry, we are not allowed to discuss moderation, or I would have some very choice words about the intent of this moderation.

I was in the UNI a long tme.
I know how many new players use mission loot as a major source of their income.
I know how many times new players would trail along behind an older player who mas generous enough not to loot their site.
I also know how many of those new players have not particularly great refining skills, but will certainly mine to make some coin. I used to help out with mining ops with new players. UNIstas would show up in a belt and go nuts.

These players all just got killed in their income.

It does not matter how CCP and the null sec cartels

those new players are all faced with a huge drop in their income.

Yet this is supposed to improve the new player experience.

Yeah, another one of your lies.

Give it a rest, Tippia. Please.

Null ratting was nerfed very recently. I'm not sure removing all isk from ratting would be a good thing though, in any section of space.

The null sec cartels

knew precisely how damaging this was to mission runners while calculating how massive a devastation to implement.

But that is all part of the plan, right?

The Alliances currently controlling null sec

This makes being self sustainable without getting into a mining ship that much harder. Which still affects those that run missions to be self sustainable, less so.

The plan on making high sec mission running the least profitable thing you can do. (According to the OP of the original quote.)

The quoted OP's Conspiracy Theory is plausible. Let me tell you why.

1.) CCP Devs have non CCP alts they play with, many of these alts are in null sec alliances. This was admitted to over the years by CCP employees.
2.) Making ways to make ISK in high-sec would be strategically sound for the null sec alliances that want to keep the monopoly they have over null sec systems.

Yup.

And T1 ship mfg in high sec will be wiped out because of it.

So not only do mission runners and low skilled miners in high sec get killed, T1 ship manufacturers in high sec are also ruined.

and of couse, so are any capital ship manufacturers in low sec. I used to build Archons, Moros, and Thanatos near Jita, bu those days are over as well

Which is what high sec just became, a provider of raw materials and

Hey, when you live to see high sec destroyed

Sometimes conspiracy is a good source of inspiration. I'm going to suggest that our CSM representitives make it their mission to make CCP bring in only changes that will directly affect Dinsdale in a negative way.

Talking about manufacturing lines?
You mean nerfing the crap out of the quantity of high sec lines, because the same null sec cartels are crying tears over that too.

Likely you are right, considering that overall production must drop to coincide with the reduction of mineral availability, this would be a perfect time to reduce the "free" lines available to the playerbase. Otherwise without a reduction in production availability, you are going to have a massive bout of market inflation on hand.

Oh it most certainly is being touched. Unless you believe all reprocessing will be done in Nullsec from now on (don't make me laugh).

Im not sure what you and Lucas find so hard about this.

So every casual player, who want to convert an LP blueprint into goods, or every non-intense industrialist, they should be gutted?

I love how I see who knows how many null sec cartel

propagandists stating flatly that the only way to properly run missions is to blitz them, for LP, and the best bang for your buck is LP based items from 5 run BPC's. Now, we see the other shoe drop when the manufacturing lines these mission runners NEED are removed.

I DO have perfect manufacturing skills, or good enough that I am satisfied with the loss of minerals.
I am not talking about inefficiencies in skills.
I am talking about the lack of slots to actually manufacture anything.

And as for partnering up with someone, that is ridiculous beyond the pale.

So srs now, who here believes that this will seriously affect hi-sec mission runners as an aggregate demographic?

You are asking this question, why?

It is very simple to see how much.
You get one of the dev's to see how much loot is refined in high sec over the previous 6 months.
The vast majority of that comes from missions.
Then factor in how much ISK was generated by high sec mission runners in the same period.
You can even get them to check how much LP was also generated. Assume 1000/ LP, because contrary to what the null sec cartel propagandists say, most people don't get 2000 plus/LP.

While I think Dinsdale if over estimating the amount of ISK generated for mission runners, the fact that reprocessed loot does provide a significant amount of minerals for the market (be it direct to the market or minerals not being bought off existing market) is of serious concern.

To somewhat quantify Dinsdales numbers though, around a third of all my mission income comes from loot (about 80m/hr total atm), and this is from me doing nonstop missions and cleaning up on my alt.

Massive long term advantage for relatively minuscule initial capital investment.
I'm sorry but it doesn't balance out. The costs do not justify the proposed advantage.

Except High Sec does not offer the same as null even if the refine rates are equal.
Null Sec has better ores, better PI, Moon Goo, faster production lines in the stations. Just to list a few-áthe only of the basic industry-áresource advantages they have. If every single aspect of Null Sec is better

Null certainly shouldn't be buffed to the point that it's cheaper to produce in null and jump freight product to Jita

On the other hand i have spent like 6 or more months manufacturing outpost in DroneLand back in 2011. Used 3 outposts to build needed parts. Used 3 systems to do intensive PI. Visiting 6*3*3 planets in 3 systems every day to collect/drop materials, restart factories, etc...
Orca from start
Freighter on parts build stage

And i haven't lost any ship doing this.

Because it's normal that you make better deals at the main trade hub of the whole game, that's why; another way would mean no profit margin for trading and the end of it.

There is no reason

The only problem I see is lore-wise:

It's irrelevant to you and some other people, but it does not mean it is to everyone.

Frankly, highseccers/lowseccers/nullseccers/wormholers can have it all if they want, but EVE rules seems to become more and more abstract all in the name of balance

The root of the problem does not lie in highsec vs nullsec incomes, it lies in the fact that nullseccers refuse to accept the risk of their environment and they blame highsec for that while it is simply not true, it's their own fault and not anyone else's.

Exactly.

Hence why this change is going to **** on production.

Except removing 12-15% of ALL minerals in the game will impact mineral availability.

Its not about income dipshit. It is the minerals people refine from the **** loot.

Similar arguments were made about drone poop, turned out to be twaddle.

Still considering IV >.> I'll go back and slip it in

Ya they just started gun mining.

Have you ever actually produced anything for any

You do know that loot at one point represented nearly half of all minerals entering the game right.

When drones died, people just moved to HS and started running LV4's and shipping that loot back out to DR for production minerals. Mining when drones were a thing made up a very tiny portion of mid-high range minerals, and it still makes up a tiny portion of them.

http://jestertrek.com/eve/blog/2012/mineralcompo.png

12-15% is based on 45% of approx 25-30% average of all minerals following the most recent changes to loot drops.

Yes hence why I didn't say the average amount of Minerals produced by gun mining is 50-55% but about half of that (based on changes CCP has made since then.)

the numbers in that chart represent where minerals came from and are based on some Dev blog from 2008.

Since then Drone Poo is gone, and Gun mining has seen around a 50% reduction to what it was.

People do not mine the ore that produces these minerals in any real quantity, Zydrine, Noxcium, Mexellon, and Megacyte, are all needed for production, I would wager at present the vast majority if those minerals come from loot reprocessing not mining, simply due to the fact, people do not mine the ores that those minerals come from in quantities that support demand.

You can't remove 45% of 25-30% ~whatever mineral~ without having an impact on the market availability.

This is the point.

If Mining was as big a to do as you make it out to be, then minerals from loot wouldn't have a place in the game.

The fact CCP is nerfing that means they do have an impact in industry vs mining.