EVE Search - 40% of the mineral market comes from loot

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Market Discussions

40% of the mineral market comes from loot

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.02.04 10:21:00 - [1] As per the CSM minutes I find this worrying. I think this needs to be raised as an issue for in a few months. What do you guys think? How should this be fixed?
YouGotRipped Ewigkeit	Posted - 2009.02.04 10:23:00 - [2] Edited by: YouGotRipped on 04/02/2009 10:34:07 by buying farmer hats? Obviously by doing something about mining to bring it to the level of running missions. As long as PVP is the end purpose of any player, even if mining is buffed some might still choose to run missions as it shortens their skills training queue, not to mention the standings gain and LPs. So that leaves us with what? Adjusting the amount of loot being dropped, eigh? Brought up in the Assembly hall, feel free to wander over and sign
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2009.02.04 10:42:00 - [3] Originally by: LaVista Vista I find this worrying. Nyphur and I found it worrying one and a half years ago Assembly Hall - Recent Summary Original 1.5 year old thread _ Create a character \|\| Fit a ship \|\| Get some ISK
Jackie Fisher Hegemony Enterprises	Posted - 2009.02.04 10:53:00 - [4] Presumably the other 60% comes from Marco Hulks. Nerf/remove hi-sec NPC refineries. Recruitment Stuff
Elena Morin'staal Minmatar Tau Online Explorator Corp New Eden Research	Posted - 2009.02.04 10:53:00 - [5] I see two "solutions" off hand to solve this, first, lower the amount dropped from missions, which naturally has a detrimental effect on the mission runners - and creates a drop in mineral stocks unless the miners compensate. Make it a big enough drop, and mission runners are likely to mine, which of course then drops the amount of mission looted mods being sold. Or, increase mining - larger, planet circling belts, more active and profitable ways to mine as mentioned in the CSM minutes.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.02.04 10:54:00 - [6] Originally by: Akita T Originally by: LaVista Vista I find this worrying. Nyphur and I found it worrying one and a half years ago Assembly Hall - Recent Summary Original 1.5 year old thread I have been saying the very same for as long as I have been on market discussion as well. I had a thread in the assembly hall back from the first CSM, but chose to not raise it due to lack of info. But given this info, I'm more confident that this is a real issue and not just speculation.
Meha Mott Minmatar Carebear Research and Produktion Agency	Posted - 2009.02.04 10:55:00 - [7] And please, can you enlighten me, why you find this worrying, and more important what do you want to change und why ?
Jagga Spikes Minmatar Republic University	Posted - 2009.02.04 10:56:00 - [8] how about reducing amount of minerals that are gained from reprocess? i find it odd that there is almost 100% material regain. also, meta 1-4 items should have reprocess value revised. i find it odd that, most often, meta 1 are cheaper to fit than common t1. by increasing their reprocess value, more would find their way into recycler's bins, therefore reducing availability on market and rising their price. this would also increase demand and price on common t1.
TimMc Gallente Brutal Deliverance OWN Alliance	Posted - 2009.02.04 10:58:00 - [9] It is worrying because it reduces miners profits, and its a pretty unprofitable job. However, cannot see how to fix it. Maybe make high sec refineries rubbish, maybe reduce loot from rats.
Lui Kai Logistics Incorporated	Posted - 2009.02.04 11:03:00 - [10] I don't find it worrying, honestly. When I realized this same fact, I just stopped mining and used missions to procure minerals. Mining is the lowest of the highsec "active income" activities. It's also the easiest, requiring attention only once per 3 minutes, and only for 5-10 seconds at those intervals. For the amount of work and risk involved, its mineral returns are just fine. Some people choose to mine for the "zen" of it, or the afk-ability of it, or other similar themes. There's no reason to scale up the return on the time invested when the -actual- time involved in mining is nearly nill, with long gaps of pretty lasers between interactions.

YouGotRipped Ewigkeit	Posted - 2009.02.04 11:10:00 - [11] Edited by: YouGotRipped on 04/02/2009 11:12:00 Originally by: Meha Mott And please, can you enlighten me, why you find this worrying, and more important what do you want to change und why ? Worrying is not the exact word to describe it. If I am right, then missions are more taxing for the server performance than mining. Obviously the network layer has its physical limitations but less server stress might result in better response times especially when considering Stackless IO (whatever that is). hahah
Joss Sparq Caldari ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2009.02.04 11:29:00 - [12] For a start, take a plunge into the deep end and completely remove Tech I modules from NPC dropped loot. To be clear, where X is unnamed Tech I loot and Y is named Tech I loot and I get a (theoretical) loot drop consisting of "X, X, X, Y, Y" then remove all instances of X to resolve a drop of "Y, Y", instead. I don't know if/how the meta level of loot which remains should be adjusted, that is another issue. Ultimately, the idea is that this way people will have to really start to pause and think as to whether or not they want to sell modules for a profit or fit to their hull a higher meta module they've picked up until they hit Tech II. Meanwhile, if you can't fit Tech II (due to skill and/or fitting requirements) then you can either purchase from the limited range of meta gear on the Market available or choose a much more available Tech I unnamed module, which just so happens to be built by another player. Meanwhile the mineral supply slack can be picked up by an increase in Mining, possibly from the very same people who were previously running missions to profit in terms of ISK, Standings (for POS, trading, refining and Character value v.s. no Standings) and personal mineral supply. Meaning that people with have to make harder choices about why they mission v.s. mining. Of course I could be missing something obvious, so I'm just tossing this out there.
YouGotRipped Ewigkeit	Posted - 2009.02.04 11:33:00 - [13] Edited by: YouGotRipped on 04/02/2009 11:33:56 Originally by: Joss Sparq For a start, take a plunge into the deep end and completely remove Tech I modules from NPC dropped loot. To be clear, where X is unnamed Tech I loot and Y is named Tech I loot and I get a (theoretical) loot drop consisting of "X, X, X, Y, Y" then remove all instances of X to resolve a drop of "Y, Y", instead. I don't know if/how the meta level of loot which remains should be adjusted, that is another issue. I'm not too sure replacing T1 with named items solves much, unless there's also less named items being dropped sooner or later there will be a lot of named items on the market that no one buys, price will drop to the point it is profitable to refine named items, and we're back to square one. Brought up in the Assembly hall, feel free to wander over and sign
Unbowed Ash Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.02.04 11:33:00 - [14] I dont see this changing any time soon. And the reason isnt profit. Lets me put it this way.. Your a mission runner. Your mission is to go to XY coordinates and kill a bunch of ships. This involves you actually doing something like - killing the correct NPCs as not to start a new wave, watch the drone agro - etc. At the end of the day you get into a destroyer class ship and pick up loot/salvage. Melt cr*p loot and sell the rest. Sell the melted loot now as minerals. Your a miner. You get your old sweet Covetor. Price is not too big and it can hold 3 strip miners. The ship needs a good ammount of skills, but so do most things in EVE that are cool. Now you warp to an asteroid belt and - WHAM - start mining. Blood is boiling, sweat is going down your brow as adrenalin pumps through your veins. Will you finish the full cycle before asteroid colapses Oh the drama, oh the joy. Ofcourse you could orbit the asteroid and pretend its shooting back. You could even pretend that you are in mortal danger ( maybe from boredom, dunno ). But that would need some sort of drugs, bong and a few beers. In case your married and have kids - not the best familly role model. Exception to this are alliance/corp wide mining missions that I have been part of many times. For instance 10 hours of Dark Glitter mining. But those are fun when wife is away "somewhere" ( she told you, but all you heard was - your free to play ) and you are on Vent with mates shooting the breeze. Happends every now and then, but not all that much and 98% of mined goods are for corp/alliance. To sum it up: mining is boring, missions are fun - thank God those missioners are melting loot.
Bad Bobby Ugly Toys Zzz	Posted - 2009.02.04 11:44:00 - [15] I have been known to run missions occasionally with my pair of Nightmares. I do this partly to gain standings and make a little extra isk, but mostly I do it to raise my sec status in an easy and relatively predictable way. I need to do this in order to allow myself to yarr while still being able to attend to my hi-sec activities. I don't even bother to loot as the time required to do so exceeds the time required to gain the same value of isk from shooting more targets. There is rarely anything interesting or unusual in the loot that would make it worth my while looking through the normal dross for the odd shining nugget. Your milage may, of course, vary as a pair of gank Nightmares is a setup particularly balanced towards this style of missioning. With lower DPS vessels the value of looting compared to shooting is different. What this is leading to is my suggestion that mission loot is, by and large, very dull. You get a lot of low quality stuff that has little value beyond reprocessing. It is also the case that T1 loot drops compete with player produced T1 so as to make it comparitively difficult to make isk from manufacturing these entry level items. My suggestion, therefore, is: 1. Remove all T1 loot from drops. Players can make it, NPCs don't need to drop it. This helps entry level industrialists and also reduces the amount of vanilla loot that gets automatically reprocessed by mission runners. 2. Reduce the overall volume of loot dropped (and by doing so reduce the reprocessable mineral content of the loot dropped) while increasing the average quality of the loot. Replacing the removed T1 with smaller drops of named items achieves this. 3. Introduce low probability drops of rarer and more desirable items like faction, implants, skillbooks etc that will not be reprocessed and will instead be used or traded. This will also make it more desirable to actually bother checking wrecks due to the chance of finding something of significant value. I see these steps resulting in the same value gained by mission runners who already loot, but with less to be gained by reprocessing of that loot. Less minerals enter the marketplace from mission loot which allows supply & demand to raise the price of minerals. Miners then get more of a monopoly on mineral creation therefore making their profession more valued and attractive. However, for this to work without encouraging more macro miners and sweatshop farmers we will need to take steps to allow the EVE community to police the mining community effectively. To do this we must be able to comit concord sanctioned aggression against miners, which means we need to be able to war dec them, which means they need to be outside of noob corps. This element is not something I've given a great deal of thought but my first thought would be to prevent players in noob corps from undocking in T2 ships. This would allow noobs to continue being noobs for as long as they wish but prevent them from moving into hulks or anything else advanced before they move out into a player or FW corp.
Olga Mokroff Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2009.02.04 11:54:00 - [16] "Recycled materials are accounting for 40% of the minerals in EVE." How much of those 40% comes from drone regions? Quote: I'm not too sure replacing T1 with named items solves much, unless there's also less named items being dropped sooner or later there will be a lot of named items on the market that no one buys, price will drop to the point it is profitable to refine named items, and we're back to square one. It's already happening. Currently, meta 1 and meta 2 (in some cases even meta 3) items are going on the market for their reprocessing value (in hisec).
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.02.04 11:56:00 - [17] Originally by: Olga Mokroff "Recycled materials are accounting for 40% of the minerals in EVE." I sent an email to Dr. Eyjog asking for that information. I'll let you know once I hear back.
Ricdic Caldari	Posted - 2009.02.04 12:21:00 - [18] I had a fairly long winded idea to combat this about 9 months ago here. It was more focused on allowing proper specialization, a miner being the core supplier of minerals, a mission runner being the core supplier of named loot, a producer being the core supplier of T1 products. It also went on a little bit about the ability to customize a producers items. It's nothing like T3 but its still a form of customization that will be able to give some form of individuality to a product. As a mission runner I enjoy the mineral yield from missions however when considering the effect on miner profession (especially as listed here now at a whopping 40%) it really shows how damaging this is.
Ki Shodan Gallente deep blue	Posted - 2009.02.04 12:34:00 - [19] Why should "minerals from loot" be fixed? Some people incorporate this in their playstyle, you want to take it away from them? Guess what happens if this 40% are going down the drain? If mining is boring, don't do it, unless it pays good. Problem might be the respawning of ore, but then again, when trit rise to a certain point it might become viable to mine the Veld-Moons in Low sec or 0.0. :-) - Minerals from loot is good, don't touch it. - Have something done for the miners, better reward for low sec ore. 0.0 seems fine to me, if trit is in need there, the residents should pay the markup or go and mine their own. - adjust the ore-respawn rate according to the new population of eve.
Elena Morin'staal Minmatar Tau Online Explorator Corp New Eden Research	Posted - 2009.02.04 12:39:00 - [20] Quote: However, for this to work without encouraging more macro miners and sweatshop farmers we will need to take steps to allow the EVE community to police the mining community effectively. Make mining barge/mining barge skill untrainable by NPC corp members? Its a piece of **** to make a one man corp if you're a macro, but it removes you invincibility to war decs.

Rellik B00n	Posted - 2009.02.04 12:41:00 - [21] dont see the problem to be honest. Nothing said here has convinced me any different. Forget the usual "nerf hi-sec/buff lo-sec" dross: the argument always leads to the same place. Consider: Mission loot Includes high ends. Tends to be a spread similar to manufacturing since it comes from manufactured goods. Is vaguely interesting. Now mining: Does not include high ends, requires buying this in. Is not vaguely interesting. Has a low yield in most high sec areas - its barely worth bothering with an asteroid scanner. Hitting mission drops does not help would-be tech 1 producers in the slightest. Why? Because they will then need to arrange for a supply of high end minerals from a bottlenecked system. The only people this helps are the people the other side of the bottleneck. Mining as a profession has been dead for a long, long time, let it RIP.
Ricdic Caldari	Posted - 2009.02.04 12:45:00 - [22] Make Mining Interactive Whilst my idea of implementation was probably poor the core aspect of making mining interactive will drastically reduce the ability to farm or at least benefit those who are at the computer far more than those who aren't. I posted that idea article just under 3 years ago and it still holds true mostly. Shame the images were removed but they weren't anything special anyway
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2009.02.04 12:45:00 - [23] Originally by: Ricdic Make Mining Interactive Whilst my idea of implementation was probably poor the core aspect of making mining interactive will drastically reduce the ability to farm or at least benefit those who are at the computer far more than those who aren't. I posted that idea article just under 3 years ago and it still holds true mostly. Shame the images were removed but they weren't anything special anyway We discussed interactive mining with CCP if you read the minutes
Jagga Spikes Minmatar Republic University	Posted - 2009.02.04 12:48:00 - [24] NPC corp problem is easily solvable: 25% tax rate for NPC corp and trade tax of 2.5%. everything good (war dec immunity) has to be paid for :)
KISOGOKU	Posted - 2009.02.04 12:49:00 - [25] You should not start a thread without this info and had to ask how much per cent of of minerals come from drone alloys from empire missions ? LVV while CCP adding drone missions non-stop nothing can be changed Originally by: LaVista Vista I sent an email to Dr. Eyjog asking for that information. I'll let you know once I hear back.
Caleb Ayrania Gallente TarNec	Posted - 2009.02.04 13:14:00 - [26] I see some related issues to this one.. Loot tables should get a look from a general influx perspective. It should give drops according to global supply and demand of a given item. If it drops a pile of say some ammo the chance that this happens should be compared to availability of this item globally. If something like this was used it should fix price on the item and mineral value. It is only a problem that loot is used for minerals due to the fact that the item is not in demand. In general T2 is a bit to easy to get a hand on, the T1 is hardly considered as a good price performance alternative. With T3 comming soon(tm) the balance need a big overhaul imho.. My personal feeling is that touching upon this topic alone is kind of redundant, because its linked to basically all the other market/economy issues.. So a look at all of them, and fixing those that are easy first might be the best approach.
Amrumm Rhetorical Devices	Posted - 2009.02.04 13:20:00 - [27] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Olga Mokroff "Recycled materials are accounting for 40% of the minerals in EVE." I sent an email to Dr. Eyjog asking for that information. I'll let you know once I hear back. May be difficult to distinguish between the drone refinables from regular missions (which otherwise offer crap reward) and from drone regions ratting. Based on personal experience I expect the drone missions to be a relatively minor source of minerals (although the high-ends are always welcome).
joan arcangel	Posted - 2009.02.04 13:30:00 - [28] Originally by: TimMc It is worrying because it reduces miners profits, and its a pretty unprofitable job. However, cannot see how to fix it. Maybe make high sec refineries rubbish, maybe reduce loot from rats. or you can just make reprocessing mods in hi-sec bad and leave the ore as good refined.. that why mods are more likely to be sold instead of recycled..?
Tasko Pal Heron Corporation	Posted - 2009.02.04 13:34:00 - [29] Originally by: YouGotRipped I'm not too sure replacing T1 with named items solves much, unless there's also less named items being dropped sooner or later there will be a lot of named items on the market that no one buys, price will drop to the point it is profitable to refine named items, and we're back to square one. If on the other hand the meta of the named items is that good, it will have a negative effect on T2 production, invention. For a lot of gear, meta 4 is the only one with any resale value. It really depends on the popularity of the module.
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2009.02.04 13:37:00 - [30] Increase mining yields ten fold, and or allow compression style play like the Rorq into empire.



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.