The Little Blog of Games

There has been a rather interesting discussion on the science and industry forum regarding the effects of Dominion on mineral prices. I’ve been following the discussion for some time now and since the issues started bouncing around a lot I figure I would write myself a synopsis of the whole thread to clear my head.

Of course this list of issues got too damn long and what I ended up with was a reply to the thread in which I try to collect the wisdom in one or two (or maybe just a few) posts. However, it is getting really late and I don’t dare to post my stuff at this time so I’ll just put it up here. The original thread can be found here.

This has become a pretty long and intense thread and I think it might benefit everyone if we could just do a quick synopsis of the main issues and proposals discussed so far. I’m not sure if I’m the best person to do this, but I’ll give it a shot anyway.

The story so far

The whole thread starts with the OP fretting about the fall in prices of the high end ores since Dominion came out. Everyone pretty much agrees that this is due to the sudden increase in ore availability in 0.0 brought about with the system upgrades of the sovereignty revamp and to a lesser degree by wormhole space supplying said ores.

Since the amount of ore is no longer a limiting factor in 0.0, everyone+dog is shifting to mine high end ores in hopes of better profits. This in turn causes massive oversupply which starts to bring down ABC prices. Much lamentation over diminishing profits by former 0.0 miners can be heard.

Drone alloys as a source of minerals is brought up in the conversation, but it is generally agreed to be a small(ish) factor in the current situation. The same applies to T1 loot drops as a source of minerals, although it is seen as a more of an issue. Generally it is felt that T1 drops could be balanced better, but don’t need to be completely removed.

Tying into the mineral price conversation is also the issue with insurance (or IER = insurance exchange rate) which acts as a floor to mineral prices, but is seen problematic by many. Suicide ganks are brought up and while somewhat offtopic, they are used to illustrate the problems spurring from insurance. Removal of insurance is predicted by many to cause a universal crash in mineral prices and so cannot be done without introducing replacing mechanisms.

A universal agreement is found in the fact that any solution/change that would lead to fewer subscriptions for CCP will unlikely be implemented. CCP has stated that they want to reinforce the original ideal for sec areas (high/low/null) and that their wish is to move more people out from empire space.

This is seen by some as the overarching goal for any changes proposed, so that for the proposal to have validity null sec needs always to be “better” than high sec. Others maintain that there should be no difference to the sec areas if their inherent risk vs. reward ratio doesn’t support the differences (i.e. null sec mining shouldn’t be inherently more profitable than high sec mining if more high end minerals are produced than the market demands etc.).

An underlying theme found here is the premise that the risk vs. reward ratios of the different sec areas are skewed against the desired population ratios. The usual view of the current situation is that:

High sec = very low risk vs. moderate payout
Low sec = very high risk vs. moderate payout
null sec = moderate risk vs. high payout
wormholes = moderate risk vs. high payout

The result is that high sec and null sec (with wormholes often seen as an extension of null) are seen as the only areas worth inhabiting due to the risk vs. reward ratio. Some 80% (?) of players are inhabiting the safe empire space, which is what CCP wanted to change with Dominion.

With the cap removed from null sec ores there are no real limits anymore to null sec population and a mass exodus is happening as alliances want to exploit their unlimited ore reserves. Some people see this as a problem (for example diminishing profits from 0.0 mining due to oversupply) while others would like to see empire space thinned even further. However, almost everyone agrees that low sec is currently ‘broken’.

Many people also feel that the market is currently working as it should be, since the high end mineral prices are dropping because a new (huge) supply of high end ore was introduced. Once the high end prices drop to whatever level makes mining them less profitable (risk vs. reward again) than high sec mining, people will move back to empire space and things will balance out. The argument against this is that while the market may technically balance the mineral prices eventually this would be detrimental for the game as mining (as a profession) and sec areas as a whole would be harmed in the progress.

The actual discussion has of course been rather heated at times and the ghastly ‘do/don’t do this and EVE will die’ card has been played more than enough by some the more excitable persons.

What can we learn here?

From this setting several opinions on the cause of the problems and proposals for solving them come about. The ones listed here are only the most prominent themes, with individual solution proposals filed underneath.

1) Mineral distribution is flawed and should be corrected for the sec areas and mineral prices to balance.

The main issue claimed here is an inherent problem with the ore distribution and their mineral composition where the different sec areas (high/low/null) have different ores and the ores yield different amounts of different minerals. The ore mineral composition prevents miners from selecting which minerals to mine as the high end ores (ABC) also yield low end minerals. This combined with the manufacturing requirements of ships/modules leads to disparities in mineral prices and prevents the market from balancing the prices correctly.

The core problem is seen as the markets inability to regulate itself through supply and demand. The demand side is inflexible due to the mineral requirements of manufacturing and the insurance system only pronounces this. On the supply side, mining high end ores also produces low end minerals which doesn’t allow miners to focus on market demands and produces a surplus of undesired minerals.

Solutions:

1a) Introduce ores containing all minerals to all security areas so that the miners can self regulate the supply (essentially remove sec area based ores). The mineral yield should be balanced so that the desired reward ratio for different sec areas is maintained (i.e. mining zydrine in high sec should be as profitable as mining trit in high sec).

Arguments against this say that this would simply fix the prices of all minerals between each other and ultimately to the best (risk vs. reward) available sec areas value distribution. Since it is next to impossible to perfectly balance such yield (risk levels change with player activity) this just causes sec areas to have disproportionate risk vs. reward ratios, which in turn leads to the ’80% miners live here’ issue with one area.

1b) Re-balance refining yields across the sec areas so that refining gets more efficient in lower sec areas. This should increase loot and mineral value in underpopulates areas while mitigating mineral supply in high sec.

Many argue that this would simply raise the low end mineral prices (as supply drops) without significant changes to population densities (the payouts should raise considerably to mitigate the risks associated with lower sec areas).

1c) Introduce mechanics to convert minerals to other minerals (mineral alchemy). This should allow for the market to regulate the supply side. No counter arguments here.

1d) Adjust the Bill of Materials for manufacturing so that high end ores are needed more in manufacturing.

The main arguments against this is that it is very difficult to balance the nearly 500 items in game without disrupting the overall game balance (knock-on effects). It is also seen as a temporary solution as re-balancing might be required every time the game changes to any significant degree.

2) Mineral oversupply is the problem and should be fixed to balance the mineral prices.

The biggest problem is the general oversupply of minerals vs. the markets ability to consume them. Market will balance the mineral prices if the supply meets the demand.

Solutions:

2a) Remove (or lower) insurance and introduce NPC buy and sell orders for some modules currently only supplied by NPCs (like POS components and POS fuels) to set limits on mineral prices. This would allow the market to use isk faucets/mineral sinks (sell to NPC orders) when mineral prices are too low or isk sinks/mineral faucets (buy from NPC orders) when mineral price rise too high. While mineral prices are in the desired range players will trade said items with each other.

2b) Limit POS usage in wormholes to prevent “permanent” residence. This should curb mineral flow from wormhole space, although wormhole minerals are not seen as a major problem at the moment. Orca based moving “bases” are often  offered as a more suitable solution to wormhole exploitation.

2c) Introduce alternative methods of income to mining professionals. If miners could utilize their skills and ships to earn isk they would more easily move away from mining and thus reduce mineral supply. Proper mining missions and new mining options (fuel mining etc.) have been suggested.

<<EVE: Space junk

EVE: Hunting dogs and their keepers>>

Tags: eve, forums

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 25th, 2010 at 10:23 pm and is filed under games. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.