|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2256
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 22:24:26 -
[1] - Quote
Fozzie, could explain the thinking behind the zyd/Meg increases? Is this intended to be a long term or short term fix? Is the
I feel like as soon as the changes hit, some people might mine more of the high ends and drive the supply back up to meet demand, and put prices near their starting point, only effectively changing the number of people mining and minerals used, once everything else stabilizes. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2256
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 01:31:40 -
[2] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:Ok serious post.
Has anyone at CCP considered just what the changes to Megacyte production cost is going to do to HS Production? There is no "mining" source of Megacyte in HS, the markets in highsec only hold a supply 25% of current demand. After changes the market supply will be effectively 25%. The only source of HS Megacyte was gun minning which CCP nerfed by nearly 45% last year. It doesn't take a degree in math to show that a 200% increase to the requirements of Megacyte are impractical and unsustainable at current levels, let alone when you compound future changes to Sov, any Fatigue Rebalancing.
HS will need a source of Megacyte, as will Lowsec. If the goal is to make self sufficiency a thing, then it should be applied to all areas of space. Otherwise.
Its game over man, game over.
I don't think this will be a major issue, firstly because Meg and zyd are a very small portion of build materials, and secondly, oversupply was the reason current prices are where they are at (speculation effects notwithstanding).
My only concern, and maybe slightly misinformed opinion, is that once the mineral becomes more demanded, the supply will catch up like it does currently, leaving us with a new status quo. However I am not against the idea of giving highsec some sort of limited direct acces to those two minerals. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2256
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 04:33:24 -
[3] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Summary: More ISK moves from highsec's already very modest mining returns to benefit nullsec alliances. If you can't run a logistics chain to get your supplies to nullsec, you shouldn't be operating a nullsec Corp / alliance.
Personally I'm starting a nullsec relief fund because I have seen their poverty and it's a real tear-jerker. why should the space be so worthless in comparison, importation is only real option? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2256
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 05:19:48 -
[4] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:We import THEIR minerals / ores and yes importation is our only option. I'll venture to geuss the value and volume of the minerals you need from null are fractional compared to what is hauled out in the same time period.
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:To answer your question their space is FAR from worthless. It is a fact they have so much more profitable activities that they farmout their mining already to those desiring to mine their space for them. Yes, and most of those activities don't include strip miners I'll bet. And as for renting, not everyone chooses optimal isk/hr playstyles, so I wouldn't point to that as a primary indication of comparitive profitability.
Goal of these changes isn't to simply make null miners richer, but to make the indutrialists and those farther down the resource chain, less reliant of the next JF load from highsec. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2256
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 05:21:48 -
[5] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:The Rorqual should be part of this month's balance pass to enable those miners to pull in more yield cause its hard work sitting in a spot chewing on a rock, then to get hot dropped on by a fleet of so-called pro-pvpers who like to gank something that cant really fight back.
Give the Rorqual some love..
this will not STOP
until the Rorqual is back on TOP! The rorqual has as much place in this discussion as jump fatigue and mission running. Very little and only a secondary effect to be considered.
Simply hijacking a thread to get attention to something unrelated is kinda lame. And also against the forum rules. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2258
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 17:48:47 -
[6] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:Blue donut mining is a lot safer than hisec. It's not a carrot, it's a stick right up the rear of every non-bot hisec miner. Grats on encouraging deklein bot fleets, CCP Lapdog. Buzzword check: Blue donut Botting CCP-(fanboy)
well written response, thank you for your time. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2261
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 22:53:08 -
[7] - Quote
Vertueux Arkaral wrote:Will Ore Prospecting Arrays affect wormholes? This release? No. Cant get get proper sov in a wh. The ore mineral comps will change though. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2261
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 22:55:21 -
[8] - Quote
FireFrenzy wrote:Wait...
They are doubling the "high value" ore in everything and not dropping other mineral use?
YAY FOR MOAR EXPENSIVE EVERTYTHING!
Or have i grossly misread something? zyd and meg make up miniscule amounts for most builds (excluding things like mining crystals, which are not being changed). So the effect on price will be hardly noticeable compared to an increase in any other mineral. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2261
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 23:00:28 -
[9] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Querns wrote:FireFrenzy wrote:Wait...
They are doubling the "high value" ore in everything and not dropping other mineral use?
YAY FOR MOAR EXPENSIVE EVERTYTHING!
Or have i grossly misread something? You're not far off the mark, but you're overestimating the impact a little. Doubling zyd/mega does not significantly increase the cost of a finished good, because so little of the minerals are used compared to trit/pyer/etc. I'm not a titan builder myself, but one I spoke to said that the change would only add 1-2b to a titan's cost (about 80b today). Scale down the impact to smaller goods appropriately. Eh, proportionately capitals use less highends than smaller ships and modules do, but even in the small stuff if it's more than a 5-8% increase I'd be surprised. I actually have a sheet for the build cost and portions of building a Hel from a few months back (so before and price influences).
Zydrine and Megacyte combined were 0.07% of minerals by volume and 3.16% of the build price. Prices for each zyd and meg were 464 and 850 respectively.
So the impact will definitely be felt for someone who mines high ends primarily, and very little impact on someone who builds with them. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2261
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 00:00:51 -
[10] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote: What I'm saying is that highsec mining is already a modest to low income activity and cannot afford to lose more ISK / hr to nullsec.
Btw, even if my mining ship were absolutely invulnerable to any and all attack and interference i would still be making modest to low ISK / hr. Risk vs reward, Yes! Using this mantra to strip highsec miners of anything resembling fair ISK / hr, NO!
That is the issue of Incursions and LVL4s having skewed rewards - but that is a whole can of worms. No changes to highsec mining will take place without either 1) Completely killing Tech 1 production; 2) Completely reviewing T1 input costs. TL;DR Would have to lower all required T1 inputs, lower ore yields/mineral compositions of said ores across the whole of New Eden -> then you could see your ISK/hr go up in Hisec. But why would we do that. This is a discussion about mining and the proposed changes to it, please stay on topic. This change will deplete nullsec need for highsec ore our incomes will drop. NOTHING else in the game needs to change except the proposed changes for our incomes to drop. I am NOT asking for my ISK / hr to go up, find any place I asked for that. Im asking for it not to go down. So, we should just leave null with a heavy dependence on empire ores? Rather than encouraging more null pilots to put more isk down on assets in null? |
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2262
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 00:31:54 -
[11] - Quote
Henry Plantgenet wrote:NPC nullsec areas should have at least as good ores as 0.1. apparently CCP thinks differently. I thought the ores in NPC were determinant on the sec status already? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2264
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 04:12:17 -
[12] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Arkonor:
- Tritanium: 22000 +15095
- Mexallon: 2500 +1222
- Megacyte: 320 +90
-Zydrine removed-
Bistot:
- Pyerite: 12000 -4572
- Zydrine: 450 +214
- Megacyte: 100 -18
Crokite:
- Tritanium: 21000 +8
- Nocxium: 760 +485
- Zydrine: 135 -232
Dark Ochre:
- Tritanium: 10000 +1196
- Isogen: 1600 Isogen added
- Nocxium: 120 -53
Zydrine removed
Gneiss:
- Pyerite: 2200 Pyerite added
- Mexallon: 2400 +1122
- Isogen: 300 +58
Zydrine removed Tritanium removed
Spodumain:
- Tritanium: 56000 +16779
- Pyerite: 12050 +7078
- Mexallon: 2100 Mexallon added
- Isogen: 450 Isogen added
Megacyte removed
Mercoxit:
- Morphite: 300 +7
Hedbergite:
- Pyerite: 1000 +919
- Isogen: 200 +4
- Nocxium: 100 +2
- Zydrine: 19 +10
Hemorphite:
- Tritanium: 2200 +2020
- Isogen: 100 +41
- Nocxium: 120 +2
- Zydrine: 15 +7
Pyerite removed Mexallon removed
Jaspet:
- Mexallon: 350 +206
- Nocxium: 75 +3
- Zydrine: 8 +5
Tritanium removed Pyerite removed
For the lazy |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2266
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 04:59:58 -
[13] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Rowells wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote: What I'm saying is that highsec mining is already a modest to low income activity and cannot afford to lose more ISK / hr to nullsec.
Btw, even if my mining ship were absolutely invulnerable to any and all attack and interference i would still be making modest to low ISK / hr. Risk vs reward, Yes! Using this mantra to strip highsec miners of anything resembling fair ISK / hr, NO!
That is the issue of Incursions and LVL4s having skewed rewards - but that is a whole can of worms. No changes to highsec mining will take place without either 1) Completely killing Tech 1 production; 2) Completely reviewing T1 input costs. TL;DR Would have to lower all required T1 inputs, lower ore yields/mineral compositions of said ores across the whole of New Eden -> then you could see your ISK/hr go up in Hisec. But why would we do that. This is a discussion about mining and the proposed changes to it, please stay on topic. This change will deplete nullsec need for highsec ore our incomes will drop. NOTHING else in the game needs to change except the proposed changes for our incomes to drop. I am NOT asking for my ISK / hr to go up, find any place I asked for that. Im asking for it not to go down. So, we should just leave null with a heavy dependence on empire ores? Rather than encouraging more null pilots to put more isk down on assets in null? Should we leave highsec industrials at the mercy of nullsec, while removing their dependence on us? I would lean more toward yes, seeing as it stands currently, nullsec is HEAVILY dependent on highsec, whereas highsec supplies pretty much every other sec status. with the added bonus of only needing about 5% (depending on product) of its ores from non-highsec |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2267
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 05:59:52 -
[14] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Should we leave highsec industrials at the mercy of nullsec, while removing their dependence on us? Rowells wrote: I would lean more toward yes, seeing as it stands currently, nullsec is HEAVILY dependent on highsec, whereas highsec supplies pretty much every other sec status.
When we want to produce anything other than T1 we are not heavily but ABSOLUTELY dependent on the rest of New Eden for the pricy supplies like T3 components, expensive nullsec-exclusive ore, etc. If we are so dependent on the rest of New Eden for those products, game balance should make the reverse true as well. So dependent? Maybe you wouldn't think so if you consider how many ores are bought from highsec, how many finished ships (including T2/T3), modules, faction mods (only the odd pirate drop and escalation in sov), implants (mostly not in sov null), and I'm sure I missed something else that sov null is entirely dependent on highsec for. So considering the only thing highsec can't get itself is pirate faction goods, sleeper loot, and moon goo, a decent portion of which will go back to null as finished products, I think a slight shifting of low-ends minerals in the high-end ores is way underwhelming.
Also, considering highsec will always have a vastly larger labor force, you shouldn't expect to see any massive drops in income. Highly doubt highsec miners are suddenly going to switch their operations to null (especially seeing as renting is about to become less of a thing).
also, the mass amounts of mission loot refine into highends, in case you didnt know. So its not entirely as strictly cut as you may think. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2268
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 07:17:09 -
[15] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:
Typical goonshit.
implants are small and easily transported, their consumption is not anywhere near minerals, same for faction modules. Building ships in hisec is doomed anyway, I'm not sure why even bring that up. If you alliance is dependent on hisec for ships, there is no surprise you got your butts kicked in Fountain. Mission loot refinable in highends is a LIE. The amount of highends obtained by refining is negligible. I probably should drop your face into eve-refinery's table for my proof, but as you're just a goon troll, you don't need proof, you're just here for paplinks on orders to capitalize your gains from this unneeded change, and the last thing you need is discussion. Hisec income is ALREADY rekt btw. But you will ignore this anyway, when 25% of hisec mining income has gone down the drain even before changes are live, and more to come. Hisec miners won't switch to null, unless it's a blue donut, but blue donut is a domain of bot fleets and actual miners are not needed there. Hisec miners just have to unsub again like in Odyssey and wait for another 5 consecutive buffs which it took to recover mining to 75% of former income from drop to 25% on Odyssey launch.
Well, I have just had my full dose of ignorance for the day. And its only 1:14AM. Nice. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2277
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 16:00:02 -
[16] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:So destroyer would have to reload once while Skiff dies. not before concord shows up. Also maybe deploying combat drones would help if you are so inclined.
Basil Pupkin wrote:The second part is so completely unrelated to the topic that I'd question the state of mind of person who wrote it, if only he weren't a gewn. Its absolutely related. Its part of the safety tools at disposal for miners.
But, then again, I'm talking to someone who thinks mining in anything lower than .7 is too dangerous for any decent mining. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2285
|
Posted - 2015.04.16 21:50:57 -
[17] - Quote
I'm pretty sure all ships die pathetically quickly in hostile space. Not just barges. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2290
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 02:48:24 -
[18] - Quote
It was fozzie on the last o7 show where they broke the news. Unfortunately I was at school (watching the stream) so I didn't have the chance to cash in on it.
They even joked about the opportunity to "make money for watching the show"
e: of course after rereading the posts above I realize my redundant statement |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2292
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 06:24:08 -
[19] - Quote
Simon Alfrir wrote:Edit: I do believe in risk/reward. I went over to zkillboard and searched on some of the mining ships to see where the kills are located. It's roughly 50/50 with just over half of the kills happening due to gankers in Highsec. Given that it is so dangerous to be a miner I feel compelled to demand we have access to nullsec ores in highsec. Fair is fair. Do you believe the number of miners in null is equivalent to that in highsec? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2292
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 07:38:29 -
[20] - Quote
Simon Alfrir wrote:Thanks, I am having a look over the rest of the thread as the initial post, your post and the announcement didn't answer my questions. For the entire game I believe the total amount of ISK lost for mining is equal between nullsec and highsec. I believe that currently the amount of money made per miner is far greater for those who do it in Nullsec. (You are already being rewarded). Ok, so unless the number of miners in each sector are roughly equal, a 50/50 split doesnt show a similar trend. If there are more miners in highsec, a 50/50 means more losses per person null. If more miners in null, then higher loss per person in highsec. The 50/50 ratio shows us nothing about frequency.
Simon Alfrir wrote:Maybe you can clear it up. How much do your miners make per hour right now? Before the recent market shenanigans, I would say 40-60mil/hr being the appropriate range, however those numbers are very dependent on which ores they chose and fits they used and gang links and other such factors.
Simon Alfrir wrote:It is very hard to be profitable with industry in Highsec, I know this first hand. I heard/read that PI was also not worth doing in Highsec but does well in low/Null. Now mining is going south as well. I would like to know how many miners has your corp lost in the past month. Can you prove to me that mining in Null has added risks which warrant getting a larger reward? I couldn't actually say how many miners we've lost. Circumstances beyond my control had a corp merger and a brief period of time away from the game (about a month or two). Even before that I can only say I was aware of about 5 other miners (pilots, not to include alts) personally, though i'm sure there were a few more. However there were a couple that mined ice primarily as I did for a period before glitter value tanked.
As for the extra risk? Essentially it comes down to the difference in mechanics.
- In null anyone can shoot you at any time, so anytime hostiles came around you had to either dock up and wait or get in a fleet to fight.
- The logistics to move the ore to highsec includes its own risks as well. Depending on the size of your shipment you could end up losing a lot, it didn't happen often (I praise our JF pilots on this), but I'm aware that some groups have honed skills on hunting hostile JF pilots. And this is necessary since there is only so much you can do with surplus high-ends if you keep it local, and then you have to decide whether to refine at home and keep the low ends or if it is more profitable to save the cargo space in compressed form
- Then there is the sov and index requirements. This can be considered to be split up amongst the alliance, but it definitely makes it very difficult if you try to run the operation with less people.
- Risk to assets if you lose your station, and the loss of isk on anything destroyed in the process of defense (ihubs, TCUs, ships, etc.).
Most of these risks are shared by the group, and also the methods used to reduce it are shared as well, but adding all of these divided costs still adds up to quite a bit more than what is needed in any other area of space. |
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2292
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 07:43:40 -
[21] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:Querns wrote:So what sort of EHP would you consider to not "die pathetically"? I am interested to hear how deep this well of cognitive dissonance goes. Any EHP would die, more EHP just takes longer to do so. Barge is fundamentally defenseless, no matter how much EHP it brings. In null outside of blue donut it will just die longer, in hi it will be bumped all over the place, EHP doesn't solve any of those problems, and pretending that it matters is typical igewnorance. so, what in your opinion, would make them safe enough then?
I still stand by my statement, that any ship trying to do things in hostile space will die. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2293
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 08:14:13 -
[22] - Quote
Simon Alfrir wrote:Thanks for the answers Rowells. Your miners currently make about 4-5 more than me and do have more risk. Transportation is also a greater risk. I'm trying to understand why it is needed and I just don't see it. The system seems to be working. Forgive me if I don't believe that number, My low end estimate includes the low end ores, so I'm a bit skeptical on how two of the same ores mined in different areas of space are worth less in one and not another.
and as for the shipment aspect I'll have to disagree again. The only risk is of being ganked, and their are plenty of deterant options available if the pilot is so inclined to choose. A little bit anecdotal here, but the only times I've ever lost a hauler were in low and nul (excluding that one time I learned the rules about entering hostile faction space in highsec). both losses were above 500mil too (freighter+lowsec=badidea). The only real difference I would argue is you cant use JF jump drive between systems. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2295
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 09:11:29 -
[23] - Quote
Simon Alfrir wrote:Rowells wrote:Simon Alfrir wrote:Thanks for the answers Rowells. Your miners currently make about 4-5 more than me and do have more risk. Transportation is also a greater risk. I'm trying to understand why it is needed and I just don't see it. The system seems to be working. Forgive me if I don't believe that number, My low end estimate includes the low end ores, so I'm a bit skeptical on how two of the same ores mined in different areas of space are worth less in one and not another. and as for the shipment aspect I'll have to disagree again. The only risk is of being ganked, and their are plenty of deterant options available if the pilot is so inclined to choose. A little bit anecdotal here, but the only times I've ever lost a hauler were in low and nul (excluding that one time I learned the rules about entering hostile faction space in highsec). both losses were above 500mil too (freighter+lowsec=badidea). The only real difference I would argue is you cant use JF jump drive between systems. Currently I can make about 10 Mill. an hour in a barge mining ore. You stated you make between 40-60 Mill. an hour. So you make 4-6 times more than I do. I also am acknowledging that transportation is riskier for you in Null. My income is now going to slip. I will be making less and your numbers will rise you will be making more. BTW, our haulers also are increasingly at risk of being ganked. It's not a zero-risk process. Can you honestly tell me your miners/industry are currently so hobbled that these changes are necessary? I would like some details on that setup before i try to hazard any guesses why the income is so low. I'm not even matching any numbers like that on any of my tools. Closest I could get is omber, which is currently the worst ore to mine for value.
The problem these changes address wasn't just the isk/hr comparison. It was the large disparity of the minerals in high end ores. If you were to mine everything you could get your hands on you would end up with a massive overstock of high end mins, which surely doesn't encourage the kind of sov space use that is being expected.
currently you have little choice, but to mine the best you can get and ship to empire so you can use the isk to buy what you need. I don't have the stats on all builds, however meg and zyd take up an extremely small portion of the bill. This is one of the things explained in the OP, the price changes on final products will be almost negligible, whereas if you have serious amounts of it in surplus, you are going to earn quite a bit more for it. While at the same time, some extra minerals are being removed with some higher volume of others added, to make the ores themselves line up more closely with actual manufacturing demands. Meaning it will be easier than before to use your own space to your advantage.
In case you weren't aware, the low end ores typically take up the vast majority of the cost in any assembly line. anywhere from 90% of the cost and 95% of the volume depending on what you build (im currently looking at the spread on a super which has higher ratios than mentioned). |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2299
|
Posted - 2015.04.17 20:58:51 -
[24] - Quote
Sodamn In-sane wrote:you can poke your revamp,give us back our isboxer for nullsec miners,ban the use of it in pvp only You seem to forget that even mining has pvp in it.
So it looks like it's still banned. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2305
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 18:24:57 -
[25] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Querns wrote: Reading between the lines:
We don't care about dedicated miners and industrialists We view it as a necessary evil We just do what we need to in support of the alliance and couldn't care less otherwise
By this thinking they should have buffed industryin hisec instead where people would actually appreciate the changes! I'm not sure what lines you're reading between there. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2314
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 21:37:49 -
[26] - Quote
You know it's a slow day when the mineral composition bread turns into a blob or not to blob debate/turdflinging |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2315
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 01:27:13 -
[27] - Quote
LTC Vuvovich wrote:Lets face it peeps, CCP is out of control plain and simple. This game has gone to **** ever since CCP ran off all the RMT's. I liked it better when RMT's were in charge... they didnt CHANGE things every 3 months or less. They simply CHARGED more. 7/10 |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2318
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 19:42:17 -
[28] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Querns wrote: The part that you are missing is that we do have ample supplies of ships to fly around GÇö we just import them from empire. The (super)capitals that we make are also 98% built from imported empire minerals. The point of this change is to make that 98% figure go down some.
I have a posting challenge for you. Try to make a post that furthers your argument without using hyperbole or mentioning Goonswarm Federation or The Imperium in any way.
Except you already have sufficient materials in the static belts to utterly replace all highsec sources. Since static belts have at least comparable low ends to a highsec belt as well as some additional high ends. Technically yes, they contain every mineral needed, but the ratios are way off. You mine out every single belt and asteroid in New Eden and you will have a massive oversupply of high-ends, which only come from outside empire. More than highsec and nullsec could ever find a use for, especially after all of the tritanium and pyerite run out.
Its like buying a car for the tires. You're getting more way more than you want in order to get what you need.
Let's take a look at arknor for a moment (I know this isnt representative of all ores):
Based on current market, after the recent price hike for high ends, Megacyte and Zydrine account for about 86% of the value of the minerals. Compare that to a sample build cost for Epithal. The same two minerals account for under 5% of the build material cost.
Lets look at Arknor again under new numbers. The value of Megacyte (zydrine is removed) has dropped to only 73% of the ore's value.
Even spud has received a significant change, dropping its meg (used to be 38% of value) for some iso and mex, leaving Trit as its primary value of 50%
Caveat here, not sure how the demand for high-ends will change these numbers and in what directions or for how long.
I think I'm going to play with this sheet more and see if i cant link a more comprehensive one here |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2318
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 19:59:49 -
[29] - Quote
GetSirrus wrote:In terms of farms and fields, what is being offered by CCP Fozzie amounts to a Genetically Enhanced crop (Fozzie GEGäó). Less farmers and more yield. That would at face value mean less targets for the PvPers?! Additionally these targets would be within densely populated systems - reducing chance or isolated opportunities to be attacked. I don't think the isolation or density should matter that much. I'll happily bowl through a pack of procurer again even if I only kill one. And the resulting defenders coming to kick me out would be a plus too.
And I disagree, I believe there would be more targets, since there is more reason to be out in belts. Will they come out from the woodwork in droves? Absolutely not, but there would definitely be an increase.
GetSirrus wrote:Coupled with; It has been a regular posit by players that Null Sec is the end game of Eve and that players should aspire to emigrate from high-sec. Yet there is a distinct lack of recruitment for mining by null held authority. The more yield from less harvesters re-enforces this. Thus there is little welcome for miners into null. Should they remain trapped in high-sec like some ghetto? I don't personally agree with nullsec being the endgame. in my opinion, you can find your endgame anywhere you want and also find out that theres more out there. One of my favorite aspects of Eve really.
There is no reason to recruit them. If you let them mine for the increased income, you will get nothing but a few extra taxes (assuming they reprocess in null) or just watch as they ship the materials to highsec since you can only use so much zyd/meg/morph. If you make them mine the low-ends for as long as theyll last, they demand more isk for risking more, which means highsec importers win by price, sending the new miners back to wherever they were from.
Essentially, the current most optimal position to place any miners you recruit is in highsec. Move a couple randoms for the high-ends and you have a nice situation mirroring exactly what is happening now.
GetSirrus wrote:Additionally, given the near automated player style that mining induces - out of step with the mechanics of the rest of game. Perhaps it should not be a dead-end, relegate the operation to deployable platforms and be done with a player style that has little long-term prospect. I don't know about that. Based on that line of though, we should move ratting to automation too. Maybe add some more interesting gameplay aspects to the environment around it. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2318
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 20:03:34 -
[30] - Quote
all being said and done, about those mining structures, I have yet to wrap my head around what they actually plan on doing with the new structures they are suggesting. |
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2318
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 20:24:25 -
[31] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:FearlessLittleToaster wrote:As a nullsec miner I endure considerably more risk that a highsec miner. I would challenge you to show that there are more per capita highsec miner deaths from CODE etc. than nullsec miner deaths from all the people who can shoot them. Unless you've been solo mining in N3 space, I seriously doubt that you are at risk from other players, when mining in Goon space, unless your corpmates have taken up awoxing. That sounds like a player made solution. Even hig-seccers don't have to worry about awoxxing as much as they did before.
Risk is still there. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2319
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 20:39:12 -
[32] - Quote
elitatwo wrote: Nobody is doubting that.
Supers aside, the consequenses of self-sufficency goes beyond nullsec. Why would any nullsec corp want to trade anything if they can just make all the stuff they want where they live?
They can just stay where they are and never be bothered to go beyond their own borders. That may sound cool for them but everyone else it is going to be bad.
No one asking for total self-sufficiency. A push in the direction, but not total independence.
elitatwo wrote:Then you talk about isk per hour, in your space and tell me about hyperbole.
Funny you mention this, again what is that money for?
In a self-sufficient space, a member asks in alliance chat 'I want x boat' and someone says 'there you go, pick it up in y station'.
In low- or highsec someone wants a boat and since nullsec doesn't want to trade anymore there are none, she or he quits. Again, nobody asking for total self-sufficiency. I'm not sure where you're getting this from.
elitatwo wrote:Fights only happen in nullsec and wormholes sometimes since they can make stuff and only need a connection to low- or highsec to assemble the stuff they can make (tech3 anyone??) to use it.
Highsec sells tritanium, mexallon, pyrite, isogen and some noxcium for 1 isk per unit - happy future. You have a very special imagination. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2319
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 20:42:13 -
[33] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Querns wrote:Currently, the best way to mine (in terms of managing one's sanity) is to gang together in small groups and shoot the shit on Mumble while you suck crok. This means a lot more people hanging out in space, in general. lol... this is exactly how mining used to work throughout high sec, until CCP decided it was too passive and too safe - and figured that encouraging more high sec PVP to counter this type of game play would somehow make mining more exciting and eventually bring in more subscriptions. And how has this changed?
Sizeof Void wrote:Well, you don't want to make null sec mining too safe or boring, either.... so, maybe null sec mining should be restricted only to systems where a hostile alliance has sov - ie. miners cannot mine in their own space and are forced to go to hostile space in order to mine. I can see it now... fleets of mining barges grinding rocks while being guarded by supercaps...lol. Not sure if serious... |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2321
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 00:40:16 -
[34] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Speaking of cybernetics-enhanced performance - this was in Rancer, Rancer of all places! http://i.imgur.com/yiNTZ9S.jpg Didn't stop to think about that Legion having Beams. vOv I think that's a Role-Playing corp with real people. What the hell is up with that HUD? CAPSULEEJECTEDWARPDRIVEACTIVEKILLREPORTAVAILIBLESHIELDSATFIFTYPERCE T
Don't you just love that post-Exploding lag |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2323
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 04:17:11 -
[35] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:When does this change take effect, anyways? April what? april 28th |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2323
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 08:13:09 -
[36] - Quote
Sure, picking the single most populated region in the game and comparing it to any area in null, the volume of kills will be different. But then you realize, that with the number of people in that highsec region, its a bit less isk lost per capita than the aforementioned nullsec region.
So, divide the total loss in isk by number of losses. Nullsec residents are losing 40mil more per loss than highsec residents. So theres that too.
Also, it doesn't really matter how safe the players make it. I imagine if highsec worked together and invested like nullsec, they too, would achieve paradise. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2324
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 09:51:34 -
[37] - Quote
Simon Alfrir wrote:Much more money is lost from mining in Highsec than in Null. That's what the killlboard is showing. maybe you need to look at more than just 'this number is bigger than that one. Its not surprising that highsecs massive population (3-4x greater than null iirc) would have more lost from mining barges by volume. It's expected since there are so many more miners in null. What we were comparing is the relative safety, which is far more skewed toward nullsec being the least safe.
Simon Alfrir wrote:There are more miners in Highsec therefore more people are being hurt than helped by this change.
There is no added game play value (miners need not apply to your Null corps).
No one in this thread has demonstrated why these changes are needed. Answer: The changes aren't needed. If you really havent bothered to read the dozens of responses as to why the change is needed, I doubt repeating them to you again is going to make you actually read them.
As to hurting more players, just because one group of players is benefitting off the lack of gameplay from another group doesn't justify keeping the status quo.
Or, of course, we could drivel down the path of only doing what the majority of players want and just toss out any kind of gameplay implications.
Hell, since all those miners in highsec seem to be what we balance the entire game around, why don't we remove barge ganking? Or, better yet, increase the refine rate of highsec stations to surpass nullsec, since its only fair to the greater population. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2324
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 22:55:48 -
[38] - Quote
He's just a couple 'Cartels' short of a full Dinsdale |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2326
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 23:20:54 -
[39] - Quote
You mean those four orders? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2330
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 03:36:33 -
[40] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Rowells wrote:You mean those four orders? What was the volume? I'm curious. Must've been a whole 10,000 of Tritanium. 410k amongst the four. |
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2330
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 21:31:15 -
[41] - Quote
I'm on page 30 of CODE. killboard and i havent found a single skiff kill/loss. Can anyone help me? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2331
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 23:13:39 -
[42] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:about how stupid the gewnies are FTFY |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2331
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 04:42:55 -
[43] - Quote
Munchkin bait wrote:The Venture has utterly made the Hulk useless! 8/10 not bad |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2344
|
Posted - 2015.04.26 06:38:54 -
[44] - Quote
Zemfadel wrote:This still doesn't fix the reason no one mines...
theoretical max isk/hour mining would be MAYBE 60M with these changes, so actual would be something closer to 30M and you would need minimum of 6 people mining at once (4 miners, hauler, booster).
You can pretty easily make 60M/hour ratting (iirc, it's been a while since i ratted) solo with generally the same risk and slightly less boringness.
If you want people to mine in null you can't have an alternative that has similar risk, is more entertaining, and nets you double the profit... You have to either increase the profit or decrease the risk relative to ratting No matter what changes you make, mining will always be subject to market forces and driven down to whatever level it settles at.
And plenty of people mine. It's exactly the reason mining has its lower income rates. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2364
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 02:35:56 -
[45] - Quote
I'm literally watching my recent plagioclase investment crumble underneath me. Oops. |
|
|
|