|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air
3190
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 02:52:00 -
[1] - Quote
I merely say rebalance the industrial capacity of all the regions around their ship and goods consumption rate. That is the definition of fair. Newbies can still manufacture to fuel highsec conflicts and whatnot and nullsec industrialists will be called upon to fuel nullsec wars. The problem with universal outsourcing of industry to highsec is that it pits newbie industrialists against the most advanced and resource-rich industrial operations in EVE. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air
3190
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 02:57:00 -
[2] - Quote
True but arguments like Katran's are great for we can use them to inform the not-Katrans what EVE is really like. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air
3190
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 03:13:00 -
[3] - Quote
eve is a sandbox therefore all facts are subjective. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air
3191
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 03:43:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP already knows the folly of catering towards risk-free carebear content, and show no signs of easing up on encouraging 'emergent content'. I mean, they've iterated bounty hunting. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air
3191
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 03:52:00 -
[5] - Quote
Tesal wrote: Its not risk free. You lay your money down and bet you will make a profit. If you are good, you make money, otherwise you lose money. Its player vs player.
That's right, which is why all forms of PvP should be an option everywhere in EVE. Making an area 'consensual pvp' makes as much sense as me deciding I don't feel like paying what a marketeer is charging, and give him what I feel is a fair price. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air
3197
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 18:11:00 -
[6] - Quote
Takseen wrote:Tippia wrote:Bagrat Skalski wrote:High sec is ok, buff null. Highsec is not ok. It makes buffing null both futile and impossible. Only if you want to try to make it have its own industrial base, instead of just using highsecs. What are the actual gameplay advantages of having people making some/all of the stuff in null? - properly gradiates levels of risk and reward for industrial activity along the lines of resource extraction-activities - enforces the idea that nullsec alliance actively patrol, utilize and occupy their space - opens nullsec to manufacturers and builders due to necessity on the part of the nullsec alliances - allieviates direct competition between newbie industrialists and industrialists with enormous levels of experience and cumulative resources.
I've never said nullsec should have 'all' industrial activity, just the amount needed to sustain its own wars and conflicts while having enough of an efficiency/capacity advantage over highsec to make it worth doing for the small-scale industrialists |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air
3201
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 20:15:00 -
[7] - Quote
Tesal wrote:Tippia wrote:GǪand there will be glorious battlesGǪ Or they get blobbed by a super coalition of 15,000 people and get kicked out of null and all their industrial slots go to the enemy. That's been more the case in recent history. Bigger your coalition is, the bigger your reliance on industrialists and their output is. So outsourcing the security and support of said industrialists to NPCs is very convenient, if you're in a super coalition. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air
3201
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 03:41:00 -
[8] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote: We should really keep the status quo with the current game economy because it is currently working.
Captain Tardbar has also argued in the past that all expansions since Dominion are good because subs are higher now than then.
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air
3201
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 03:46:00 -
[9] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:I see sort of what he's getting at about all that stuff generally being exported to high sec to be produced in safety, I just don't agree with the method of handling it. Your stance of 'cyno mechanics are the problem' is flawed because it seeks to treat the symptom instead of the cause. Rebalancing industry across secstatuses is the way to go, as all other attempts to reduce ship movement to 'increase activity' (and there have been many) have failed to achieve the desired result. While ignoring the actual problem which is the fundamental asymmetry between ship consumption and ship production relative to secstatus in EVE Online. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air
3201
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 04:43:00 -
[10] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:I'm not sure if you see the cause and effect in economics land....
If hi sec went away tomorrow the first thing that would happen is that mineral prices would go through the roof simply because miners would be unable to mine (at the rate that they do).
This would lead to massive cost increases to people who manafacture who get less of a profit. Therefore people who manufacture would have to have to sell their wares at a higher price.
People who are on fixed income (missioners and ratters) would suddenly discover their incomes are no longer able to purchase the same amount of goods as before.
Unable to replace their ship losses (also related to loss of hi-sec) without resorting to plex, many players that are on fixed income will consider quitting the game because of the fact they can no longer afford to play.
Simple. Economics. Missioners and ratters can do this thing called 'reshipping to a barge' if the incentive to mine and manufacture was so much higher incentivized, Economics Master. |
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air
3202
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 04:58:00 -
[11] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:If they want to mine and manufacture, chances are they're already doing it. Pushing someone to do what they don't want to do is probably the worst possible thing you can do in a game. We're talking about high-level economics here, about how increased risk would make it economically impossible for missioners to 'play for free'. Good thing I'm here to remind people that free will exists and that reshipping to barges is always an economic option in such a scenario
As for your argument, hm, that's an open-ended statement. This whole thread is about nullsec industrialists being 'pushed' by game mechanics to do something they don't want to do (base their industry in highsec), after all. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air
3202
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 05:01:00 -
[12] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote: So you want CCP to say to a large portion of the player base "Sorry you spent months training up those skills and spent millions or billions on those ships that you no longer have a viable option to play in a game play style that you obviously were enjoying. Also sorry that mining is so boring. Maybe the constant ganking will make it exciting."
Do you think those players are going to keep playing or just cut their losses and quit outright.
Supercarrier pilots kept on playing after the super nerf, and they invested far more SP and ISK into their ships then any mission bear. Also, if they were truly 'enjoying' missioning , they'll continue doing it isk/hr ratio or not. If it's all about the PLEX and it doesn't matter how they do it, they could switch over to mining. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air
3202
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 05:14:00 -
[13] - Quote
Yeah and then I swatted you down again.
Quote: Also on the super carrier argument, nerfing the super carriers did not remove their ability to generate income. I
People ratted in their supers all the time. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air Red Alliance
3204
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 06:56:00 -
[14] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:As for your argument, hm, that's an open-ended statement. This whole thread is about nullsec industrialists being 'pushed' by game mechanics to do something they don't want to do (base their industry in highsec), after all. Which is a big part of why I say there should be changes, but I don't agree with many of the suggested ways. Its not unreasonable to expect bonuses for everything you do in nullsec and lowsec. There is increased risk afterall. Seems that really only applies to being able to get T2 materials in the first place, exploration, and a slight bit of missioning though. I support encouraging additional risk, but not breaking what's already there, even if that means say null sec was given the ability to surpass 100% refines somehow, or minerals from ores were adjusted along with a perfect refine change that perhaps capped high sec refines and such, balances where the average null sec person might end up making the same, but the extraordinary, smart, or protected would be able to get through with higher profits, and at a steady change to see if such a change really would encourage people to move out that way or not and adjusting for increased piracy. That way the only real change is that potential profits are much greater in null sec in all things, but everything else is largely left intact. Wouldn't be against giving null sec the tools to set up their own protected trading post either, though that would likely prove more complicated that I could imagine. Well, 'surpassing 100% refines' creates game balances with things like module reprocessing - a perpetual mineral generating machine. Not particularly advisable when one could just somewhat lower highsec refining and manufacturing capacity to something below 100% perfection. It doesn't particularly harm highseccers because decreased supply of minerals simply mean that increased prices are passed along to the buyers who are primarily null and low pilots. As for manufacturing, I'm something of a cynic and feel that the level of safety granted by CONCORD and NPC stations is so beneficial that no reasonable level of tariff or additional fees topped onto highsec manufacturing (as suggested by some) is going to stop other regions from outsourcing their industry to hisec, and that the only lasting solution is to simply make it impossible to outsource all of EVE's industrial needs there by balancing highsec's industrial capacity (not efficiency) around highsec's ships/good consumption rate.
Fixing nullsec industry has 3 separate, fundamental problems with it which need to be fixed before industry in 0.0 become viable.
- The base building material for nearly all goods (low-end mins) is obtained in greater supply (highsec roids last longer) with greater ease and efficiency in highsec. Native industry can't grow if people aren't gathering resources to feed it. - Nullsec manufacturing capacity is comically low, with entire regions with hundreds of billions invested in infrastructure being unable to handle the workload of lone highsec systems. - If nullsec manufacturing was made abundant & perfect, highsec manufacturing would continue to also be abundant & perfect with a side bonus of unconquerable stations, free and protected by CONCORD, lacking incentive for industrialists to use 0.0 space.
- Fixing the first would involve something CSM Candidate Mynna terms 'Super-Veld', replacing one of the useless nullsec ores less valuable then scordite with a roid that simply yields more low-end mins then the highsec options. Added incentive, nothing taken away from highsec.
- Fixing the second would likely involve a POS overhaul (which would benefit everyone) and a revamp of nullsec player-owned stations and what they are capable of. Again, nothing objectionable there, right?
- The third would be a sensible nerf of the capacity and efficiency of NPC highsec stations to make operating as a builder out of null or wherever an economically alluring option. This is where discussions tend to break down into hyper-defensiveness.
As for trade hubs, let's break into some actual discussion of economics here (not 'daah if mining is more profitable then missioning den da missioners will quit') and bring in this description of economic sectors. As it stands, 0.0 (and wormholes) are locked via game mechanics to a Primary-based economy - generating income is based around gathering resources from the environment, whether highend mins or raw ISK. Here's a long post of mine explaining why a primary resource-based 0.0 is outdated and should be corrected.
Hardcoded game mechanics ensure that the secondary economy (and much of the primary) is exclusively in highsec, and so it follows that the tertiary industry (retailing/wholesaling) emerged entirely in highsec as well. Talk of making trade hubs in 0.0 have been attempted for years and years, nearly all of them failing. CFC's VFK-IV might be a tempting example, but I'm more of the opinion that's more a cunning, costly effort of Goonswarm's financial directorate to exchange ISK for membership participation then anything approaching 'natural'.
Correcting nullsec industry would cause all sorts of social and metagame upheaval in EVE, including the likely emergence of true 0.0 trade hubs.
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air Red Alliance
3204
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 07:11:00 -
[15] - Quote
I'm just going to assume the ISD doesn't know what pyramid quoting is. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air Red Alliance
3209
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 18:59:00 -
[16] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote: I'm still not entirely convinced nerfing high sec is the answer and that really should be more about increasing potential reward for risk first before thinking about any nerfs since really, but I kind of see what you're getting at. I don't think I've ever suggested nullsec industry could be fixed with purely null buffs or highsec nerfs. Why? Because with highsec's three big advantages - ubiquitous availability, 99.9% efficiency and CONCORD protection, creating a null industrial system that could make that look bad would be imbalanced in of itself.
Of the three described, reductions to efficiency can be just passed onto the consumer and resolving nothing, while weakening CONCORD would be harder to push forward and effect more people then limiting highsec industrial capacity to highsec consumption. Nerfing highsec by itself certainly isn't going to make null industry viable I absolutely agree, which is why I'm in the camp of |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air Red Alliance
3209
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 19:00:00 -
[17] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote: I know some people in hi-sec are guilty of this too, but they don't usually come in and post threads to make null and low safer or demand that low and null incomes be nerfed
never seen a thread related to 'local', 'blues' or 'moongoo' before heh |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air Red Alliance
3213
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 02:36:00 -
[18] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Tippia wrote: But facts are still facts. Shouting "that's just a point of view" doesn't actually change the fact that they are objective facts.
Like this one:
HS industry is literally perfect. It's Cheap, Risk Free, Has Virtually Unlimited Capacity and is Convenient.
Oh really? Just exactly where is this high security Industrial heaven located? 'Virtually Unlimited Capacity'? Most high security Industry slots are filled with waiting times, up to 30 or more days before being open and available. Especially those near Market / Mission Hubs. 'Convenient'? Searching to find open slots available or at least slots with the lowest waiting time and then having to travel there takes time. Actually, the more time it takes to complete a job equates into less money you make. 'Risk Free'? Now that's a laugh, especially when you use that phrase to describe any activity being conducted in high security. Transporting a large amount of items in high sec is like painting a large 'Bulls-eye Target' on your ship, especially since the main target for suicide gankers is Industrial ships. 'Cheap' is about the only thing I could agree with. But after taking into consideration all the time, effort and extra expense spent just to do some production, it clearly is no longer 'Cheap'. The inconvenience of your autopiloting your unescorted freighter 5-6 jumps to the nearest empty manufacturing slot to at a free, undefended station, while not deliberately overloading your freighter with valuables, is noted.. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air Red Alliance
3222
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 17:36:00 -
[19] - Quote
Buzzy Warstl wrote:If nullsec gets industry on par with highsec, what reason will there be for trade between nullsec and highsec? Regional moongoo Faction goods Naval goods officer modules datacores/FW goods Implants/mission LP-derived goods T3 components and modules highend minerals nullsec surplus highsec surplus
off the top of my head, I'm sure there's lots more |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air Red Alliance
3235
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 02:57:00 -
[20] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote: Once the jarheads overcome their cultural bias against people living in their space who aren't shooting things all day, industry in nullsec will be much healthier.
non-supercap industrialists are seen as a liability in nullsec because the mechanics prevent effective industry from taking place, making them liabilities. All alliances who disagreed with this assessment and loaded up on industrialists... are dead. An advantage in industrialists in 0.0 is no advantage at all. That's not a 'cultural bias', that is cold truth proven in the darwinian ecosystem we call nullsec every day. Economic change precedes cultural changes, not the other way around. |
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air Red Alliance
3237
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 04:07:00 -
[21] - Quote
The problem is that highsec benefits like CONCORD-based security and unconquerable stations are impossible to quantify monetarily without extensive trial and error. Hence, putting in place tariffs and adjusting highsec industrial efficiency is problematic.
Industrial capacity of regions however is easily quantified (stations x average station slots + number of moons one can put a POS on) and much harder to get wrong, which is why I think that should be the target of rebalancing. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air Red Alliance
3237
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 07:39:00 -
[22] - Quote
Quote:The majority of isk destruction happens in null - if you offer full access to optimal industry there, you would make large coalitions largely self-sufficient and eliminate another conflict driver. I'm looking to increase this conflict driver by effectively forcing players to travel and secure routes through hostile territory. The current 'conflict driver' of supply-based primary economy is pathetically weak. Don't believe me? Here's a fun experiment: 50% of highsec's total output winds up in null, but you can find more afk autopiloting freighters on any given highsec gate at any given time then died in all of highsec for that day. How much would you say 50% of highsec's collective output is in a day? if it's 'more then 5 freighters', then I got news for you - the current system isn't a 'conflict driver'. Having nullsec produce where it consumes would invite far, far more conflict.
Caitlyn Tufy wrote: Simply put, I believe null is far too stable for what it's ment to be, a chaotic "wild west" of EVE
This intention of nullsec died in 2004, if not sooner. CCP has since moved on to wormholes. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air Red Alliance
3237
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 16:24:00 -
[23] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:I have no issue with increased taxes/fees on manufacturing slots. But I think if they're changed, those fees should maybe be relative to npc corp standing like the refine tax.
I do start having issues when people advocate removing abilities (like t2 production - as this is a goal I'm actively working toward) entirely out of high sec or making high sec npc manufacturing slots scarce. Folks are welcome to disagree, but I can't see how increasing competition for available slots is a good thing for new players or smaller corps. The casual gamer would be affected disproportionately. Quite the opposite. Putting a cap on how large you can expand your manufacturing operation in highsec incentives the non-casual industrialist, the wholesaler, the guy who crushes the newbie indy with cumulative wealth and razor thin margins, to move out where manufacturing resources are more plentiful, which is where ship consumption is more plentiful. This frees up highsec manufacturing, and more importantly the highsec market, for the casual gamer. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air Red Alliance
3238
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 20:26:00 -
[24] - Quote
Takseen wrote:Yes, and I've dabbled in this a wee bit, making various lesser used rigs with super cheap materials, like targeting speed and increased velocity/agility. Not sure if I could have done that if there was a big flat fee on manufacturing slots. Material efficiency penalties or limited slots wouldn't have bothered me nearly as much though.
Slower turnover/lesser demand on certain T1 goods in highsec = larger profit margins = room for newbie indies. This is why incentivizing the movement of large-scale industrial operations to the space where large-scale consumption happens is good for highsec casuals and newbies. Fees apply to everyone, whereas capacity limitations (as nullsec residents know well) effect larger operations much more strongly then smaller ones. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air Red Alliance
3238
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 23:28:00 -
[25] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:The value of Zydrine is already 150x the value of Tritanium. It won't work.
YK oh man this post is just embarassing |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air Red Alliance
3238
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 01:15:00 -
[26] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:Oh. Well, would adding that obtaining Zydrine only requires ONE jump into low sec make it any less so?
YK No because ore/m3 is the metric used to mining value, not the isk value per unit of mineral.
And going by that metric, we can see that the most common nullsec grav site ore, Spodumain, is worth only a third of the value of Scordite per mining cycle.
Scordite also outvalues Crokite, the main roid to go for Zydrine, for value per mining cycle.
The profits of nullsec mining measure at around +27% for the trouble (of being killable at any time, building, capturing and defending stations and opportunity cost of doing such), not 15,000% as you were asserting. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air Red Alliance
3238
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 01:35:00 -
[27] - Quote
Tesal wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:...Scordite also outvalues Crokite, the main roid to go for Zydrine, for value per mining cycle. That's because there are too many null miners and they are flooding the market with cheap zydrine. No that's stupid. Nullsec is a small minority of players, of which a very small minority mines ore. People complain that 'nullsec is dead and noone lives there' with one breath and that there is 'too many miners and activity' the next. The relatively miniscule amount of highends needed to buidl things however was balanced in 2003 and has nothing to do with EVE in practice. Not 'too much industry and activity'. The answer to both these problems is the introduction of superveld |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air Red Alliance
3238
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 01:52:00 -
[28] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Tesal wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:...Scordite also outvalues Crokite, the main roid to go for Zydrine, for value per mining cycle. That's because there are too many null miners and they are flooding the market with cheap zydrine. No that's stupid. Nullsec is a small minority of players, of which a very small minority mines ore. People complain that 'nullsec is dead and noone lives there' with one breath and that there is 'too many miners and activity' the next. The relatively miniscule amount of highends needed to buidl things however was balanced in 2003 and has nothing to do with EVE in practice. Not 'too much industry and activity'. The answer to both these problems is the introduction of superveld So the answer is to devalue the mining profession again? No the answer is to admit that the regional balance system of 'tons of low-end mins in safe space and small amounts of high-end mins to build things' is a failed concept because, like in real life systems, ordered systems inevitably develop more and more effective and efficient ways then the past (also known as 'progress'), which is why high-end mining has steadily devalued (barring buffs) since EVE's beta. If it were merely a 'isk/hr' problem, you could change the BP reqs and be done with it, but the truth is that the idea of null as 'resource extraction-based' economy is obsolete and flawed of itself, and should be able to sustain its own material needs internally so that it could develop true empires and advanced societies instead of the sophisticated pre-industrial mining camps protected by militia systems we have now. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air Red Alliance
3238
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 02:02:00 -
[29] - Quote
Zarcan wrote:You yourselves are the reason null isn't as profitable as you'd like anymore. You've exhausted it. You've streamlined it, you've made it easy and decreased everything to it's lowest possible point of resistance to the point where it won't go down anymore, and then you turn around and look at hi-sec and realize you've ruined your own profits. So 20% of the active player base managed to exhaust of the profitability of the majority of EVE's space by extremely light PvE activty (countered by having more PvP then all other regions combined) and that's some sort of collective moral failure of the players (for playing the game) and not a design flaw by CCP?
Quote:Yeah we've got lots of inflation, but that's basic economics, people. That's not a problem or a fault of CPP. The only real way to keep this moving along and fun for us is to introduce new materials and components that are initially high in value, and then decrease as supply expands. ...which you propose to solve by... adding different flavors of resource extraction into the game?
Howabout just fix industry? |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air Red Alliance
3238
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 02:18:00 -
[30] - Quote
Tesal wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Tesal wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:...Scordite also outvalues Crokite, the main roid to go for Zydrine, for value per mining cycle. That's because there are too many null miners and they are flooding the market with cheap zydrine. No that's stupid. Nullsec is a small minority of players, of which a very small minority mines ore. People complain that 'nullsec is dead and noone lives there' with one breath and that there is 'too many miners and activity' the next. The relatively miniscule amount of highends needed to buidl things however was balanced in 2003 and has nothing to do with EVE in practice. Not 'too much industry and activity'. The answer to both these problems is the introduction of superveld There has been an uptick in highend supply. You didn't used to be able to upgrade systems and relied on truesec for your ore spawns. People weren't stripping entire grav sites back then. We also had highends coming from drone poo and mission loot and both of those have been nerfed. People are definitely mining in null, enough so that the price of zydrine fell even after the Drone regions nerf. Highend minerals aren't spawning in trader hangars in Jita, they are being mined. Before any of these changes were made (pre-dominion, CSM reps (Zastrow) were bringing up the steady decline in null individual income.
The problem isn't people using their space (gasp), it's that the high-end component of the building recipe was balanced in the day when mining was done in 2004 with a mining arbitrator
Quote:Superveld would probably be worth more than arkanor the way people make it sound. It would only have to yield 50% more trit then veldspar to make that possible. |
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air Red Alliance
3243
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 04:08:00 -
[31] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: EvE is not for unique snowflakes who demand total and radical changes to the same mechanics that worked allright for everyone for 10 years
lol EVE is rife with total and radical changes demanded by players throughout its entire 10 year history |
|
|
|