Posted - 2009.04.14 00:08:00 - [2]

 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto

---

stuff

---

The problem with ores atm is that there isn't a harmonious balance. Doing what you propose doesn't fix the problem, it actually compounds it. You're basing your statistics off a static price. But by inflating the amount of isogen, or nox mined, you're actually making their price drop, thus reducing your calculated profits.

What needs to happen is an increase in the rarity of ores like isogen, nocxium, and mexalon by reducing them by 20, 30, 40% in rocks. This would ultimately create more demand due to their scarcity which would drive prices up more than the actual reduction in ores.

At the same time, Trit needs to be increased in these same rocks. The problem with Trit right now is that it's supply is slightly higher than it's demand. By increasing Trit by maybe 10-20% in low sec rock's that currently already provide trit, it would help rebalance this ore at a slightly lower price. Idealy, Trit needs to be trading closer to 3isk rather than it's current 4-4.5isk. Keep in mind, none of the low sec rocks spawn overly large quantities of trit in the first place, it's more a byproduct of mining for other ores.

Nocx used to trade around 300isk per unit, Isogen around 120isk per unit... you can see how they've drastically devalued as of late.

Posted - 2009.04.14 16:28:00 - [4]

 

Originally by: Yaay

---

The problem with ores atm is that there isn't a harmonious balance. Doing what you propose doesn't fix the problem, it actually compounds it. You're basing your statistics off a static price. But by inflating the amount of isogen, or nox mined, you're actually making their price drop, thus reducing your calculated profits.

What needs to happen is an increase in the rarity of ores like isogen, nocxium, and mexalon by reducing them by 20, 30, 40% in rocks. This would ultimately create more demand due to their scarcity which would drive prices up more than the actual reduction in ores.

At the same time, Trit needs to be increased in these same rocks. The problem with Trit right now is that it's supply is slightly higher than it's demand. By increasing Trit by maybe 10-20% in low sec rock's that currently already provide trit, it would help rebalance this ore at a slightly lower price. Idealy, Trit needs to be trading closer to 3isk rather than it's current 4-4.5isk. Keep in mind, none of the low sec rocks spawn overly large quantities of trit in the first place, it's more a byproduct of mining for other ores.

Nocx used to trade around 300isk per unit, Isogen around 120isk per unit... you can see how they've drastically devalued as of late.

---

You're making some pretty serious assumption about the scale of this new mining that I don't think are justified. Remember, all mining combined makes up less than half of the mineral supply, and lowsec will probably remain the least attractive place to mine even after these changes, because it doesn't have the Concord protections of highsec or the alliance-space protections and raw profit of 0.0 space. This is designed to make life a bit easier for casual lowsec miners, so that they can earn better money than highsec without having to scan out Gneiss belts, but I am under no impression that tens of thousands of pilots will flock to these ores and wreck the mineral market.

As for your concerns about mineral distribution in these rocks, I think they're rather unfounded. The proposed ores have more trit in them than most other rocks(they'd be #3, 5, and 6 for trit concentration out of 18), and their isogen and nocxium levels are fairly low. Those markets may be weak, but they're not so weak that a lowsec isogen roid less than half as good as Omber will crash the market. You're right that the crash in mid-range prices, especially nocxium, is what has led to this problem, but I don't see any of these changes making that appreciably worse. The goal is to make lowsec mining less dependent on high Nocx prices, not to crash those prices further.

Originally by: Bunyip

---

I have already talked with CCP about this during our first CCP/CSM meeting in Reykjavik. They're looking into how to make low-sec more appealing to industrialists, as well as 0.0 space. They tried to get it in the latest patch to accompany the prettier asteroids, but it didn't make it with so much on their plates.

I expect the autumn patch to include this if they come to a good concensus, but trust me when I say they are putting effort into solving this problem. They're probably also going to change the way mining works, like they did with exploration. For now, it's a wait and see kind of thing.

---

Even if they change the way that mining works, value/m3 will still be the defining characteristic of how worthwhile a particular roid is to mine. There are some ways to buff lowsec without changing those roids, but they tend to involve putting 0.0 ores in lowsec instead. Also, this proposal isn't intended to just be a list of three new asteroids - the goal is to make lowsec mining worthwhile by whatever means, the suggestion for new rocks was a secondary part. Double the mineral content of lowsec rocks and I'll probably be happy, but this solution seemed better. If they have already decided to fix the problem then this thread is just advice on how, but if they haven't then I'd like us to see that they do.

Posted - 2009.04.14 21:50:00 - [6]

 

Originally by: Efrim Black

---

I've never been too adept with the formulas involved in calculating this stuff, but my best idea is that since the reason low-sec ore is less valuable is that it weighs more than high-sec ore...then wouldn't leveling the Size of the ore fix this problem?

They still yield the same mineral content, they are just easier to haul?

I'm half in mind to go dredge up the thread calling for a complete mining overhaul because I liked some of the ideas propositioned there.

---

Basically, (volume mined per time)*(value of refine)/(size of refine) = (value mined per time) = profit. So yes, simply lowering volumes or increasing refine value on the existing lowsec ores will increase profits in the short term. The reason I'm not fond of this approach is that lowsec ores are very nocx-heavy, and nocx values are horribly depressed right now. If we buff lowsec ores back to profitability by simply doubling them and if nocx ever rebounds(say, with a change in minerals from mission loot), then they'll be competitive with Arkonor and Bistot, which is bad. Better to add new ores, less dependent on nocxium for their value, so that even if the mineral values change in future we don't ruin 0.0 mining inadvertently.

Also, if we're thinking of the same thread regarding mining changes(basically, make each roid contain multiple ores, and mining crystals let you focus your output on the minerals you want), then I rather like the way it would work, and would be in favour of implementing it. However, this thread is intended to be a fix that can be implemented relatively quickly without prejudicing future plans for the development of mining mechanics. That plan can still be implemented if this thread gets passed, but it'll take a lot longer to get rolling, and I'd rather fix the unprofitability of lowsec sooner than later.

Posted - 2009.04.15 19:17:00 - [8]

 

A better fix would be 'illegal' mining crystals. Massive boost to yield of low end ores.

'Devastating Veldspar Crystal'

Yield Bonus 350% (175% is normal tech ii)

Usable in 0.3 or below, due to extremely devastating environmental effects (synergy with the devastating environmental effects of moon mining). Contraband in empire. Sourced from pirate LP stores, and rat droppings.

This would bring the market forces to play in low sec, allowing veldspar to be mined there for reasonable profits to compensate the risk. Also, this High yield, short burst, type mining, lends itself well to ninja style mining.

Posted - 2009.04.15 21:54:00 - [10]

 

The illegal mining crystals proposal is a very interesting one, although there's a couple tweaks it'd need right off the top. Most importantly, if you double ore yield in non-secure space, you need to halve the yield of the 0.0 ores, to keep the profit of 0.0 mining constant(since 0.0 is fine as-is). That means you need a crystal supply large enough to keep every 0.0 miner in Arkonor crystals forever, meaning that these will have to be fairly low-value goods despite their nature as contraband. Also, don't be surprised if 0.0 miners scream their heads off anyways, since you're making their life harder with no real corresponding benefit. That said, it does one very nice thing for lowsec mining - it doubles the yield of Veldspar(and all the other ores heavy in specific low-ends too, but they're less valuable) for people mining in low/nullsec. This largely eliminates the large-scale traffic in moving around low-ends, because it's perfectly reasonable to just mine in place if you need a particular mineral, instead of hauling it in from Jita.

All of a sudden, 0.3 Veldspar is worth significantly more than Gneiss and is competitive with Crokite, and lowsec mining is at least twice as profitable as highsec no matter what mineral prices become. To be honest, that's probably way too much of a buff, because lowsec mining ought not to be better than soft 0.0 mining. Mechanically, this works out to be fairly similar to the proposal to make a wider variety of ore grades available based on sec status - in both cases, you're providing a guaranteed risk/reward curve instead of allowing market values determine what it looks like, which would solve the lowsec mining problem. On the other hand I like market forces determining what the relative risk actually is, rather than a dev pulling numbers from the air to say what it ought to be.

All in all, this seems like a version of the multiple grades of minerals proposal designed to make life easier for Rorqual pilots. It's far simpler logistically, but it lacks a lot of the tweakability and overall attractiveness of that proposal, losing things like highsec megacyte in the tradeoff. It solves some of the problems cleanly - lowsec will never be worthless again - but on the whole, I like the system less than the multi-grade proposal and less than the status quo. The details would be better than the status quo, but the structure would be worse. It's nifty, and in some ways it's attractive, but I think I'd rather fix the current system than implement this one. You certainly made me think about it, though.

Posted - 2009.04.16 16:52:00 - [12]

 

Why not require all asteroid belts to be scanned before you go mine them.

Certainly would dent the macro miners. And would make lowsec a bit more challenging.

Along with the ore being made more valuable.

Posted - 2009.04.17 15:24:00 - [14]

 

Originally by: Klyria

---

Instead of creating new ores why not simply just increase the amounts of ore that all low sec rocks give? No matter how nice you make the rocks in low sec they will never be mined nearly as much as high sec or 0.0. This means that if CCP dropped the current ores rates there, and boosted them substantially higher, we would see more people venturing into low sec, but with the same amount of risk causing the other areas to still seem appealing.

---

Do you mean more ore extracted per mining cycle, or more total ore in each asteroid?

Originally by: Klyria

---

Another thought occurs to me, why not boost the refine rates in low sec? Bump them high enough that a person with mediocre standings with a NPC corp can get 99% much easier. This would give newer players and miners a chance for better refine rates, while still not causing any issues to high or 0.0.

---

It's a nice idea, but I don't think it works - why wouldn't miners just take their peaceably mined hi-sec rocks and ship them to a lo-sec refinery for easy extra cash, rather than actually doing all of their mining in dangerous lo-sec? There's currently no way to distinguish where ore was mined, and even if there was it would complicate things.

Perhaps the higher-density asteroids should be much rarer in hi-sec and much more common in lo-sec, and perhaps buff their refine yields slightly? I think this is along the lines of what you're getting at. That would make mining in lo-sec marginally more attractive, marginally hit hi-sec macrominers' profits, and probably not disturb mineral prices too much.

Posted - 2009.04.18 07:36:00 - [16]

 

I meant to say more ore per mining cycle for all of the rocks within low sec. I think that if there was enough of a gain per rock then some people might be willing to risk the chance into low sec.

I also like the idea of the illegal mining crystals, but I think they would need to be properly balanced in case to not make everything to easy to mine.

Posted - 2009.04.19 20:35:00 - [18]

 

Originally by: Ta'jek

---

Being a newer player and not having much low sec experience not sure if this already happens.
What about adding a chance to find 0.0 ore in low sec.... either by hidden belts or just a random chance of finding a decent roid in a belt
the reward of mining extra ore has to outweigh the cost of losing ships to pirates.

---

Already exists - lowsec gravimetric sites can spawn the lesser 0.0 rocks, worth about 140-175 per m3. I think that level of income is fine to give to belt-mined rocks, though - it's hardly game-breaking when Veldspar is worth 125.

Posted - 2009.04.21 09:15:00 - [20]

 

Originally by: Gaogan

---

The ore is not the problem; it's mineral prices. Mex, Iso, Nocx, Zyd are supposed to make low sec ores more valuable but their prices are in the toilet due to rat and drone loot providing far too much of them. These sources need eliminated and/or rebalanced to bring the price of these minerals back up and restore low sec ore to being more valuable.

Increasing the size of asteroids would be nice too though, so you don't waste so much time switching targets. As it stands, an additional few percent yield bonus is useless since mining out a rock in 2.1 cycles is no better than 2.6 cycles.

---

This is very probably the easiest solution of all.

It would be a lot easier if the minerals from rats and loot "due to inefficiencies" would be reduced by 50% to 75%. It would nearly instantly spark a hike in mineral prices.

Today the missioner who salvages the ships they destroyed during the mission makes about as much in minerals as a miner. Way to undercut an entire profession. At the same time the miner in a Hulk is sitting in a 100 million ISK ship with a giant bull's-eye painted on the back. The only alternative is to go to nul sec with Covetors, with vastly reduced mining ability as a result. It takes longer to mine the ore, which increases the miner's exposure to risk in a ship that is even less equipped to defend itself against nul sec threats. How's that for game balance?

Miners sorely need a space frame that is better suited to handle the risks of nul sec as well as a real advantage compared to alternative mineral sources. Or, if CCP is not inclined to do this, it has to get rid of the mining profession altogether instead of keeping up the pretense.

Abulurd Boniface
ME ME
CEO

Posted - 2009.04.21 17:57:00 - [22]

 

Edited by: Drake Draconis on 21/04/2009 17:58:17

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto

---

Originally by: Gaogan

---

The ore is not the problem; it's mineral prices. Mex, Iso, Nocx, Zyd are supposed to make low sec ores more valuable but their prices are in the toilet due to rat and drone loot providing far too much of them. These sources need eliminated and/or rebalanced to bring the price of these minerals back up and restore low sec ore to being more valuable.

Increasing the size of asteroids would be nice too though, so you don't waste so much time switching targets. As it stands, an additional few percent yield bonus is useless since mining out a rock in 2.1 cycles is no better than 2.6 cycles.

---

Long-term, yeah, that's the solution. Mining should be the primary source of minerals, not missioning. Thing is, if you try to do that right now, you'll mess up everything. There aren't enough miners to support the mineral needs of the economy, and trying to make them would spark massive price increases. Hence, I want to see mining boosts, like this proposal, added before we even think of nerfing mission mineral income.

---

This.

People keep screaming about drone drops and mission drops when the problem is elsewhere.

It's only a symptom of the problem.

My suggestion is to start with the nerfing of macro miners (make all asteroid belts scanned/random and thus requiring a human brain to actually find good ore to mine)... then kick up the value of the rock to make mission mineral hunting not so profitable.

The rest should fall into line.

Posted - 2009.04.22 17:51:00 - [24]

 

more miners in lowsec

Posted - 2009.04.22 20:12:00 - [26]

 

Originally by: Relatyve Mynd

---

Why not nerf loot drops instead? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that 40% of ore in eve was from reprocessed loot. I'm no expert on the subject of what items from what part of space reprocess into what ores...is it true that these rarer "lowsec" ores are easily found in your average reprocessed items? Change the loot tables or change the reprocessing equations and poof! all of a sudden that ore sitting out there in lowsec is worth a hell of a lot more.

---

I have trouble believing that.

Course I don't bang out level 4's until my ears bleed either.

But by the time you grab the loot...and reprocess it... you pretty much make the same amount of ISK as you would doing a good solid few hours of mining in a hulk.

Just mining 2 to 4 hours a night for 4 to 5 days straight I still make 80 to 100 million ISK easily.

Mission running in the same amount of time is dependent on the missions which is not entirely predictable... not to mention that the loot may or may not be reprocessable.

This is all tied into the market prices... and tritanium is still the most pricey of the lot.

Drone drops do produce more... but only if you get a pile of drone kills.

Also keep in mind you do not get bounty for killing drones... so how do you compensate for THAT i ask you.

I'm not asking the "nerf PVE" Jackasses.
I'm asking the rational people who balance both worlds without being stupidly prejudiced and blind.

Posted - 2009.04.22 22:31:00 - [28]

 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto

---

Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 22/04/2009 22:08:47
Highsec has the best trit, pyer, mex, and iso ores, lowsec has the best nocx, and 0.0 has the best zyd and mega ores. The problem is that most of lowsec's value comes from nocx, which is worth bugger all right now. Oddly, this doesn't seem to be the fault of missions - nocx is one of the least mission-supplied minerals in the game(only zyd is lower - see http://www.eveconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/t1-loot.png for full numbers).

---

Verified and confirmed... I see more of the high sec popular ores than the little "rare" guys...

Posted - 2009.04.23 20:00:00 - [30]

 

Originally by: Relatyve Mynd

---

This is certainly complicated, but I still believe that nerfing t1 loot would go a long ways towards making mining profitable again. By the way Draco, here's a link for you:
http://www.eveonline.com/council/transcripts/2009/CSM_CCP_Meetings_15-17_01_2009.pdf

from the bottom of the mining discussion in there: "Recycled materials are accounting for 40% of the minerals in Eve." I'm assuming CCP mentioned that during the discussion, and since it's in the CSM minutes, we might as well take it as fact. Also, that t1 loot link seems to argue for this point as well.

I guess I'm seeing 2 problems here:
1. highsec and lowsec mining (mostly highsec, admittedly, thx to the nice link from Hershel) is inundated with minerals from t1 loot.

2. There's not enough profit in lowsec mining, weighing yarrr threats against profit. Towards that, belt exploration has raised as a possibility, with better rewards (new ores like the OP suggests, for instance?)

The problem, as I see it, is that applying both a t1 loot nerf and some of these ideas about exploration mining in lowsec and 0.0 would work together to kill the mineral supply during a time when demand will actually be going up, due to a bunch of new manufacturers (hopefully) getting into the market as t1 loot stops being so plentiful. Towards this, CCP has already outfitted the mining profession with a ton of ways to optimize their harvesting, so I doubt they'd want to add more...

My best answer to the conundrum, as I've posed it anyhow, would be to do as the OP suggests and increase the values of/introduce entirely new ores to lowsec. Coupled with the plain fact that players in Eve generally go where the money is highest, we could stem the massive inflation that nerfing t1 loot would cause.

TL;DR: The OP is right imo and also this would allow for a semi-safe t1 loot nerf.


As an aside, making highsec miners scan down all their belts would be great but won't happen, according to CCP. Alternatively, making lowsec miners scan down their belts would either:

1. make an already (I imagine) dangerous and tense task even more difficult to set up and execute, therefore increasing inflation in Eve (or conversely, rewarding organized mining corps)

2. make a difficult task a little safer, as the miners in deadspace would be safe from your average roaming pirates.

Who knows...

---

OK, you got one big problem...

If you nerf loot reprocessing you will cut about 50% of the tritanium supply which would let it skyrocket even further making lowsec even more unprofitable.

Noxc isn'T supplied by mission as much and that is down. Trit is suupplied ALOT by missions and it is up....think a few seconds and tell me what will happen if you remove all the Trit Supply from missions....