Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 30 .. 31 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
138
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 15:34:00 -
[541] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: All you'll end up doing by making capital ships and jump freighters more resource and fuel intensive is setting the bar even higher for what it takes to establish and maintain yourself in nullsec. Large alliances won't have a problem compensating. Smaller alliances will choke and die.
Never said to make jump freighters more fuel intensive, just said jump freighters were talked about. But you make a good point about the capitals... hmm... tricky. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4071
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 15:36:00 -
[542] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: All you'll end up doing by making capital ships and jump freighters more resource and fuel intensive is setting the bar even higher for what it takes to establish and maintain yourself in nullsec. Large alliances won't have a problem compensating. Smaller alliances will choke and die.
Never said to make jump freighters more fuel intensive, just said jump freighters were talked about. But you make a good point about the capitals... hmm... tricky. I thought that you were implying such, but I guess I misinterpreted. Malcanis for CSM 8 Phrases like "you can't nerf / buff X EVE is a Sandbox" have the same amount of meaning as "If this is a sack of potatoes then you can not carrot." - Alara IonStorm |
March rabbit
player corp n1
569
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 15:40:00 -
[543] - Quote
Lin Suizei wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:You want more industrial targets, gotta give the industrial targets a reason to stay out there more long term anyways. Why would any industralists move to not-highsec under your scheme, if they can just stay in highsec and continue as they were? Let's imagine a little.
Some imaginary 0.0 alliance needs stuff: ships, modules, ammo. There is war and alliance needs it "yesterday". PVP-oriented members need lots of different stuff. Traders (read: resellers from Jita) can't fullfit demand. As result local prices are higher than in empire.
Minerals? - present Manufacturing lines? - present (let's imagine alliance has outposts/POSes) Research/invention lines? - present (let's imagine alliance has outposts/POSes)
Profits? well. if high-sec people can make profits from manufacturing (when everyone manufactures something) then it will be a lot easier to make bigger profits in 0.0 (where no one manufactures at all).
In the end there is reasons to try it. Can't say about 0.0 as a whole but i remember LoD in Droneland where my corp used all available manufacturing lines (from 3 stations + POSes) all the time making capitals/dreadnoughts/supers from drone alloys. |
Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
138
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 15:47:00 -
[544] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: All you'll end up doing by making capital ships and jump freighters more resource and fuel intensive is setting the bar even higher for what it takes to establish and maintain yourself in nullsec. Large alliances won't have a problem compensating. Smaller alliances will choke and die.
Never said to make jump freighters more fuel intensive, just said jump freighters were talked about. But you make a good point about the capitals... hmm... tricky. I thought that you were implying such, but I guess I misinterpreted.
Yeah, no, I'd say they are probably in a good range with that given its convenience, and relative safety in low/null travel. I just don't like how its better to use them to export from high sec rather than produce in null sec, although it is good for hauling corps. If null sec could hold its own industry-wise, I could see things becoming a little harder on them, for better or for worse. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air Red Alliance
3237
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 16:24:00 -
[545] - 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. |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
491
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 16:33:00 -
[546] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:Buzzy Warstl wrote: Well, people are already forced into sovereign nullsec if they want to produce supercaps.
There are 2 issues: 1. Jump freighters make even fairly remote nullsec closer to the nearest highsec trade hub than the highsec trade hubs are to each other.
2. There are higher priority manufacturing jobs for nullsec than T1 and T2 subcap ships and modules.
None of the suggestions for "fixing" nullsec industry so much as acknowledges either of these things, so all of the suggestions are doomed to miss their stated goals and accomplish other things entirely should they be implemented.
Jump freighters have been talked about a lot, though mostly in the cost of the fuel. Hell, the main reason they're used currently is to import stuff from high sec into null sec because its cheaper to do that than to produce that stuff in null sec... which is a big part of WHY not much other than those "higher priority items" are produced there. Honestly, I would have no complaints if along with some of the stated fixes, caps were made incredibly resource intensive to make compared to what they are now to make it a real investment to have even one supercap. I'm under the impression those were supposed to be essentially flag ships, not something you make fleets of all willy nilly, buuut that's a different subject. If anything, caps and supercaps should be made cheaper and more diverse.
Don't mistake my intent, it is *good* that there are higher priority things to make in nullsec than entry-level gear. It differentiates nullsec industry from industry in other space.
Trying to make nullsec industry "highsec industry but better" is a fool's errand, because it requires breaking the differentiation, breaking trade incentives, or breaking highsec industry (or all 3).
Make nullsec industry better at being nullsec industry. Keep the incentives for trade. Make more things that can't be made in highsec but can in lowsec or nullsec, and increase the resources available to make those things. http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |
Captain Tardbar
NEWB ALERT
172
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 17:00:00 -
[547] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: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.
People who crush other people with razor thin margins are usually station traders, not industrialists.
Unless you are an industrialist who likes playing penny wars with remote buy and sell orders, usually if you sit at a station and trade all day then you'll find it un-needed to actually produce items for a profit.
Come to think of it... No one ever argues that the station traders are ruining the economy or make too much isk.
Despite the fact some make billions a day if they are good at it and don't mind playing penny wars with 200 orders. "Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby". If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down. |
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
301
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 18:06:00 -
[548] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote: Looking at Jita I even see plenty of T1 crap that has 30-50% profit over its mineral cost based not on the lowest seller price but the highest buyer price. If you can simply sell those goods without having to play penny wars you can make a profit as an newbie industrialist.
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.
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2902
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 18:27:00 -
[549] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:RubyPorto wrote:What's your goal for rebalancing Nullsec industry? Simple way to put it? Needs to be cheaper to produce in null sec than it is to import goods from high sec and the best methods of production need to have some sort of danger involved. Even if it just means fixing POSs because that way, even if they are in high sec, its not even remotely close to safe if someone wants to stop them.
That is actually a stronger goal than mine (since I want the Economic costs to manufacture in either place to be equal), unless you're only looking at balance sheet costs, in which case you're simply doing the math incorrectly.
Quote:Not nullsec being balanced around exporting to high sec. You want more industrial targets, gotta give the industrial targets a reason to stay out there more long term anyways.
Equal Economic Profits means that a rational actor should be (ignoring their appetite for risk*) indifferent between manufacturing in HS and Nullsec for any given market. And, seeing as a single industrialist can and will blow right through the demand in all but the largest Nullsec markets (VFK and... uh... VFK) in short order, Nullsec industry cannot simply be "well, if you ignore the cost of not having access to significant markets, you can kind of pretend to make a profit," or people will simply continue importing everything from HS.
It has to be able to export to HS and it should be able to do so at the same total Economic costs as manufacturing in HS.
*Not the cost of risk, just the appetite. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2902
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 18:28:00 -
[550] - Quote
Takseen wrote:A newbie industrialist would have a much harder time if station slots were reduced or fees increased too much, because he may not be able to make a profit at all. So they'd need some protection to get started. Much like Novice plexes and the frigate buffs helped get newbies into FW pvp.
You're assuming that prices stay constant in the face of increasing manufacturing costs. Do I have to explain why that's a bad assumption? This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
|
Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
138
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 18:47:00 -
[551] - Quote
You're ignoring the potential rise in demand should people be pushed out into those regions in the first place and that transportation costs aren't equal for all of null sec. Or if you're not, I'm not convinced you realize how impractical adjusting these costs for each individual system is. That's why I keep bringing up the border null regions. I'm also not sure how you think my proposal is harsher or "stronger" as you put it when it actually removes a cost from the equation entirely. |
Celly Smunt
Viziam Amarr Empire
110
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 19:39:00 -
[552] - Quote
Takseen wrote:Max Doobie wrote:
Didn't they just add some weird ass route lines to the screen when travelling in space? You mean THOSE kind of things take precedence over things like SOV? They aren't all that busy, they just really could give a damn about it. They'd rather have cool color lines in space.
If there isn't a name for this fallacy yet, there should be. A guy has some time left over after doing some major project, he can't just "go work on SOV" for a day or two and come up with any meaningful results. What he does have for, is an itty bitty little feature that is generally quite popular. Fixing SOV in a way that minimises the amount of disruption and nullbear tears is a way bigger mutli-person expansion level commitment.
While OT, I actually like the route lines a bit, they show us in glaring details the convoluted route that one must take to go a few light years distance. I do however wish that whichever end of the route line the next gate was going to jump you to would flash or change color or something so we'd at least know which end of topsy turvy we are on.
As for SOV/null and POSes?, those projects BOTH need serious amounts of attention and I am one of the folks who believe that CCP should focus on those first.
o/ Celly Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or be singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4078
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 20:10:00 -
[553] - Quote
Celly Smunt wrote:I do however wish that whichever end of the route line the next gate was going to jump you to would flash or change color or something so we'd at least know which end of topsy turvy we are on. It's generally safe to assume that would be the brightest star. Malcanis for CSM 8 Phrases like "you can't nerf / buff X EVE is a Sandbox" have the same amount of meaning as "If this is a sack of potatoes then you can not carrot." - Alara IonStorm |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air Red Alliance
3238
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 20:26:00 -
[554] - 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. |
Captain Tardbar
NEWB ALERT
174
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 20:36:00 -
[555] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Takseen wrote:A newbie industrialist would have a much harder time if station slots were reduced or fees increased too much, because he may not be able to make a profit at all. So they'd need some protection to get started. Much like Novice plexes and the frigate buffs helped get newbies into FW pvp. You're assuming that prices stay constant in the face of increasing manufacturing costs. Do I have to explain why that's a bad assumption?
Of course not. Items profitable today are not guaranteed to profitable tomorrow. Its Economics 101.
That said, you have the ability to put forth the effort to look for a new product to manufacture to make profits.
And its not that hard in this game to switch to another product to produce. You don't have to retool a factory or anything like you would in the real world. If something is too unprofitable to produce, I stop making it and switch to a product that does make a nice percentage.
Or are you going to say CCP needs to give handouts to lazy industrialists so they don't have to use a different blueprint?
[edit]
And another damn thing I have to bring up is that you don't have to be lazy and sell to Jita all the time or even the other major hubs.
I know people all the time who want a higher profit and work hard for their money by finding systems that also sell items but at a higher price, because people don't always want to fly to Jita to get things.
If you think the super industrialists are ruining your profits, you either need to make different crap or sell it to a different market.
You don't need a CCP government bailout to keep your failing business model going. "Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby". If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down. |
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
549
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 20:41:00 -
[556] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Or are you going to say CCP needs to give handouts to lazy industrialists so they don't have to use a different blueprint?
it would be cool if instead of getting handouts because you had all of the blueprints (which entrenches older, richer players) you got a handout because you had an infrastructure put in place by other players to defend you. |
Captain Tardbar
NEWB ALERT
174
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 20:59:00 -
[557] - Quote
EI Digin wrote:Captain Tardbar wrote:Or are you going to say CCP needs to give handouts to lazy industrialists so they don't have to use a different blueprint? it would be cool if instead of getting handouts because you had all of the blueprints (which entrenches older, richer players) you got a handout because you had an infrastructure put in place by other players to defend you.
Are you saying those older players didn't earn their isk like everyone else? Did CCP put all that isk in their wallets magically because they were older players?
So rich hardworking players who spent all that time and effort to be rich don't deserve their isk and that CCP should transfer their wealth to the lower classes?
Sounds like "Space Socialism" to me. "Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby". If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down. |
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
274
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 22:40:00 -
[558] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: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, I do not agree. No amount of incentivization will prod risk-averse players to suddenly become risk-takers. This song has been sung before and we all should know the lyrics. The issue isn't the wealth - it's the security. As long as high-sec is secure, those players will remain playing king of the hill right where they are. Low and Null already offer increased wealth potential and that carrot has done nothing to get the mules high-sec indy guys are riding to move. More carrots won't work either and will only serve to make null residents even more wealthy than they already are. This leaves stick. And while some of you might think its a great idea to turn high-sec into a barren wasteland, I just can't agree with that, since even that extreme will not accomplish the stated goal either and is probably (imo) not the greatest way to treat paying customers.
YK "He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day." |
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
302
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 22:43:00 -
[559] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:
No amount of incentivization will prod risk-averse players to suddenly become risk-takers
I have personal experience to the contrary, my good sir.
|
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
302
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 22:45:00 -
[560] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Are you saying those older players didn't earn their isk like everyone else? Did CCP put all that isk in their wallets magically because they were older players? So rich hardworking players who spent all that time and effort to be rich don't deserve their isk and that CCP should transfer their wealth to the lower classes? Sounds like "Space Socialism" to me.
Patents expire in real life. Even copyrighted material does, eventually. Wouldn't be without precedent for BPOs to do the same.
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7900
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 22:49:00 -
[561] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: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, I do not agree. No amount of incentivization will prod risk-averse players to suddenly become risk-takers. YK
Would you go into 0.0 if Zydrine was a billion ISK per unit?
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
275
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 22:59:00 -
[562] - Quote
The value of Zydrine is already 150x the value of Tritanium. It won't work.
YK "He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day." |
Tesal
226
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 23:05:00 -
[563] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:...Would you go into 0.0 if Zydrine was a billion ISK per unit?
Its difficult to give a straight answer to a hypothetical like that.
|
Lin Suizei
103
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 23:09:00 -
[564] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:No amount of incentivization will prod risk-averse players to suddenly become risk-takers. This song has been sung before and we all should know the lyrics. The issue isn't the wealth - it's the security.
Isn't this fantastic? If it's not the wealth, but the security - then let's nerf highsec PvE until highsec's reward is consistent with highsec's risk. The players who absolutely refuse to leave highsec and the safety of CONCORD can stay there and do as they please, while other players who are motivated by rewards and funtimes will finally have a reason to leave CONCORD's embrace, once highsec doesn't offer a risk-reward ratio that eclipses everywhere else in New Eden. Please do not be a risk-averse coward. |
Dave Stark
1871
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 23:15:00 -
[565] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:The value of Zydrine is already 150x the value of Tritanium. It won't work.
YK
the value of one mineral in comparison to another is completely irrelevant. "100k for notifications of stupidity, i love this bounty system." |
Skeln Thargensen
The Scope Gallente Federation
41
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 23:28:00 -
[566] - Quote
probably would for silly money.
the problem with mining in low or null security space is that a single person in local is probably going to kill you, b2b alignment speed that can't even beat CONCORD arrival in highsec. or you've got the venture which is fast aligning but can't tank or kill rats for ****.
so basically you don;t want to do that solo. I take back my previous statements and judgements of others. -áyou can mine in iteron if you want. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air Red Alliance
3238
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 23:28:00 -
[567] - 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 |
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
275
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 23:39:00 -
[568] - Quote
Oh. Well, would adding that obtaining Zydrine only requires ONE jump into low sec make it any less so?
YK "He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day." |
Wigglenomics
C O C A I N E
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 00:45:00 -
[569] - Quote
Lin Suizei wrote:Yonis Kador wrote:No amount of incentivization will prod risk-averse players to suddenly become risk-takers. This song has been sung before and we all should know the lyrics. The issue isn't the wealth - it's the security. Isn't this fantastic? If it's not the wealth, but the security - then let's nerf highsec PvE until highsec's reward is consistent with highsec's risk. The players who absolutely refuse to leave highsec and the safety of CONCORD can stay there and do as they please, while other players who are motivated by rewards and funtimes will finally have a reason to leave CONCORD's embrace, once highsec doesn't offer a risk-reward ratio that eclipses everywhere else in New Eden.
And what motivation should nullsec miners and ratters have to leave the big blue doughnut?
which is, from my experience, safer than highsec. |
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
552
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 00:51:00 -
[570] - Quote
you forgot to include "because thousands of players are working together" in your post |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 30 .. 31 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |