Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Kingnuts
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 11:48:00 -
[121] - Quote
The changes look good but the one thing that may cause a possible issue is the larger alliances simply taking over all the moons that are in convenient locations. Without any standings requirements it will now be feasible for any large alliance to dominate the real estate market and keep any smaller groups out. There is a certain attraction to that within the eve context but there is also some attraction to differentiating the degree of control large power blocs can have in the different areas of space. The standings requirement acted as something of a check on large groups becoming highsec slum landlords/grief landlords and with this gone we can expect all dedicated industry corps to have to become subservient to large PvP groups if they want to be allowed to set up facilities anywhere near a hub.
I would like to see the standings requirements reduced a great deal but removing them completely will make the real estate market rather one dimensional. |
Abyss Azizora
Astro Industrial Technologies
96
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:04:00 -
[122] - Quote
Kingnuts wrote:The changes look good but the one thing that may cause a possible issue is the larger alliances simply taking over all the moons that are in convenient locations. Without any standings requirements it will now be feasible for any large alliance to dominate the real estate market and keep any smaller groups out. There is a certain attraction to that within the eve context but there is also some attraction to differentiating the degree of control large power blocs can have in the different areas of space. The standings requirement acted as something of a check on large groups becoming highsec slum landlords/grief landlords and with this gone we can expect all dedicated industry corps to have to become subservient to large PvP groups if they want to be allowed to set up facilities anywhere near a hub.
I would like to see the standings requirements reduced a great deal but removing them completely will make the real estate market rather one dimensional.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but from what I read in the devblog
"Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements (minus some protected solar systems, like Jita or new player starting systems of course)."
Makes it sound like you will be able to anchor them "ANYWHERE" as in not just at moons, so it'd be like setting up a mobile HQ, as many as you want. If thats the case it won't be an issue, but if this dev just failed in his comprehesion of the word "anywhere" then you have a valid point. |
Kingnuts
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:08:00 -
[123] - Quote
Abyss Azizora wrote:Kingnuts wrote:The changes look good but the one thing that may cause a possible issue is the larger alliances simply taking over all the moons that are in convenient locations. Without any standings requirements it will now be feasible for any large alliance to dominate the real estate market and keep any smaller groups out. There is a certain attraction to that within the eve context but there is also some attraction to differentiating the degree of control large power blocs can have in the different areas of space. The standings requirement acted as something of a check on large groups becoming highsec slum landlords/grief landlords and with this gone we can expect all dedicated industry corps to have to become subservient to large PvP groups if they want to be allowed to set up facilities anywhere near a hub.
I would like to see the standings requirements reduced a great deal but removing them completely will make the real estate market rather one dimensional. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but from what I read in the devblog "Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements (minus some protected solar systems, like Jita or new player starting systems of course)." Makes it sound like you will be able to anchor them "ANYWHERE" as in not just at moons, so it'd be like setting up a mobile HQ, as many as you want. If thats the case it won't be an issue, but if this dev just failed in his comprehesion of the word "anywhere" then you have a valid point.
I'm pretty sure the 'anywhere' was in contrast to the current restricted placement based on standings. If they had meant POSes can now be anchored in places other than moons then I strongly suspect they would have flagged that more prominently. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20847
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:18:00 -
[124] - Quote
Kingnuts wrote:Abyss Azizora wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong here, but from what I read in the devblog
"Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements (minus some protected solar systems, like Jita or new player starting systems of course)."
Makes it sound like you will be able to anchor them "ANYWHERE" as in not just at moons, so it'd be like setting up a mobile HQ, as many as you want. If thats the case it won't be an issue, but if this dev just failed in his comprehesion of the word "anywhere" then you have a valid point. I'm pretty sure the 'anywhere' was in contrast to the current restricted placement based on standings. If they had meant POSes can now be anchored in places other than moons then I strongly suspect they would have flagged that more prominently. Yes.
They mean GÇ£anywhereGÇ¥ as in GÇ£anywhere from 0.45GÇô1.00 sec level regardless of corp standingsGÇ¥ as opposed to just the current 0.45GÇô0.75 depending on corp standings GÇö they're still moon-based stuctures. We just got 13,000 new highsec moons. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Slade Trillgon
Brutor Force Federated
2693
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:23:00 -
[125] - Quote
Thibault Etienne wrote:OK heres perspective. I'm scottish but ill use this exapmple. No offence meant to people in my examples. I know this eve crowd just love to jump on someone.
High sec USA Low sec Middle East Null Sec Somalia and the Africas
If I'm making stuff to sell in USA I'd make it in the USA where its meant to be safer for production. You think I'll fly from the states make stuff in the Middle East where its far less civilised then fly back to the USA fighting off gate camps and pirates to sell it.
Come on CCP. I hope you really aint thinking of making hi sec manufacturing less efficient. It makes no sense.
Actually that exact scenario has been happening in the US for a decade or more. The cost of manufacturing got so high due to labor costs that the owners of many companies have either shipped their produ tion lines to Asia or have completely sold their company to a foriegn investor. |
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
100
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:13:00 -
[126] - Quote
Kingnuts wrote:The changes look good but the one thing that may cause a possible issue is the larger alliances simply taking over all the moons that are in convenient locations. Without any standings requirements it will now be feasible for any large alliance to dominate the real estate market and keep any smaller groups out. There is a certain attraction to that within the eve context but there is also some attraction to differentiating the degree of control large power blocs can have in the different areas of space. The standings requirement acted as something of a check on large groups becoming highsec slum landlords/grief landlords and with this gone we can expect all dedicated industry corps to have to become subservient to large PvP groups if they want to be allowed to set up facilities anywhere near a hub.
I would like to see the standings requirements reduced a great deal but removing them completely will make the real estate market rather one dimensional. I don't understand your logic there.
How exactly did the standing requirement prevent any large alliance from creating Corps with 1 guy having 7+ faction standing and all other members (industry alts for example) having no faction standing? Thus anchoring and utilizing as many highsec POSs as they wished?
|
Zeera Tomb-Raider
Card Shark Industries
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:16:00 -
[127] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:After reading the Dev Blog, just considering what will this actually mean, and I am thinking perhaps this is partly to try and make high sec manufacturing extremely uneconomical. It all depends on what CCP will set for the cost and how much it increases based upon the number of people wanting to use the station. Any chance you can give us the formula CCP as right now the repercussion are a little hazy? So, is this now going to make high sec manufacturing now not so desirable? After all, this could be a big buff to low sec if all industrialists will have to relocate out there to get good a decent profit margin. Also - "Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements" This is going to be interesting. Devblog - Building Better Worlds agre with you and more-now i can save travling time for reschers jops lol mowing bpo-copys in frigs, but in sted i have to haule all i need for manufactoring around to different systems to make a margine proffit so wher did that saved time go mention in dev blogg.make installing mabufactoring jobs cost more and lett corp standings reduce cost just as refining dos.if i have to keep mowing aroun as a indy pilot to manufactoring it will be to mutch work.doing indi bekos i like it.but with change to com i rater stop doing it and unsub som acconts.only need 1 accont for factional warfare and making a lott more monny per houer doing that. |
Kingnuts
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:35:00 -
[128] - Quote
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:Kingnuts wrote:The changes look good but the one thing that may cause a possible issue is the larger alliances simply taking over all the moons that are in convenient locations. Without any standings requirements it will now be feasible for any large alliance to dominate the real estate market and keep any smaller groups out. There is a certain attraction to that within the eve context but there is also some attraction to differentiating the degree of control large power blocs can have in the different areas of space. The standings requirement acted as something of a check on large groups becoming highsec slum landlords/grief landlords and with this gone we can expect all dedicated industry corps to have to become subservient to large PvP groups if they want to be allowed to set up facilities anywhere near a hub.
I would like to see the standings requirements reduced a great deal but removing them completely will make the real estate market rather one dimensional. I don't understand your logic there. How exactly did the standing requirement prevent any large alliance from creating Corps with 1 guy having 7+ faction standing and all other members (industry alts for example) having no faction standing? Thus anchoring and utilizing as many highsec POSs as they wished?
You make a very good point. I didn't take into account the possible use of alt corps but now, reflecting on it, I'm slightly amazed that the griefing potential of such a set-up hasn't been exploited yet. |
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
101
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 13:42:00 -
[129] - Quote
Kingnuts wrote:You make a very good point. I didn't take into account the possible use of alt corps but now, reflecting on it, I'm slightly amazed that the griefing potential of such a set-up hasn't been exploited yet. Maybe the large alliances aren't so evil after all?
Also it probably makes more sense to them to allow highsec industrialists to compete among eachother and maximize manufacturing efficiency, so they can buy cheap stuff with their huge moongoo profits (+ sell the mongoo products to said highsec industrialists).
|
Baneken
Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light
226
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 14:32:00 -
[130] - Quote
It's because someone actually has to grind those standing to 8.0 first and the it still has to be a one man corp that cannot transfer the ownership of a POS but with the new system you can skip the one man corp and standings grind from the equation.
However killing a POS to be able to replace a POS isn't really that profitable since a POS needs fuel to run unlike PoCo's and nobody is so desperate on having a high sec POS in any particular moon that they would pay up to keep it there. Fuelling & usage requirements also keep alliances from killing all POSes in sight and replacing them for an extortion racket.
|
|
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
103
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:10:00 -
[131] - Quote
Baneken wrote:It's because someone actually has to grind those standing to 8.0 first and the it still has to be a one man corp that cannot transfer the ownership of a POS but with the new system you can skip the one man corp and standings grind from the equation.
However killing a POS to be able to replace a POS isn't really that profitable since a POS needs fuel to run unlike PoCo's and nobody is so desperate on having a high sec POS in any particular moon that they would pay up to keep it there. Fuelling & usage requirements also keep alliances from killing all POSes in sight and replacing them for an extortion racket.
I've just started researching POSs, but I understand you don't need to online (fuel) a POS to occupy a moon and ask for money to allow someone else to use the moon. You just need to anchor a small tower and leave it offline. Even without stront, in the event of a wardec you'd still have 24 hours to take appropriate action to 'enforce' your occupation of the moon.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5588
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:18:00 -
[132] - Quote
Caviar Liberta wrote:Medalyn Isis wrote:After reading the Dev Blog, just considering what will this actually mean, and I am thinking perhaps this is partly to try and make high sec manufacturing extremely uneconomical. It all depends on what CCP will set for the cost and how much it increases based upon the number of people wanting to use the station. Any chance you can give us the formula CCP as right now the repercussion are a little hazy?
So, is this now going to make high sec manufacturing now not so desirable? After all, this could be a big buff to low sec if all industrialists will have to relocate out there to get good a decent profit margin.
Also - "Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements"
This is going to be interesting. Link said blog please. That information is also cleverly hidden behind the big "DEV BLOGS" button at the top of every page on the forums. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
5905
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:22:00 -
[133] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Caviar Liberta wrote:Medalyn Isis wrote:After reading the Dev Blog, just considering what will this actually mean, and I am thinking perhaps this is partly to try and make high sec manufacturing extremely uneconomical. It all depends on what CCP will set for the cost and how much it increases based upon the number of people wanting to use the station. Any chance you can give us the formula CCP as right now the repercussion are a little hazy?
So, is this now going to make high sec manufacturing now not so desirable? After all, this could be a big buff to low sec if all industrialists will have to relocate out there to get good a decent profit margin.
Also - "Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements"
This is going to be interesting. Link said blog please. That information is also cleverly hidden behind the big "DEV BLOGS" button at the top of every page on the forums.
CCPs devious plan to hide information in plain sight is working!
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5588
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:25:00 -
[134] - Quote
Slade Trillgon wrote:Thibault Etienne wrote:OK heres perspective. I'm scottish but ill use this exapmple. No offence meant to people in my examples. I know this eve crowd just love to jump on someone.
High sec USA Low sec Middle East Null Sec Somalia and the Africas
If I'm making stuff to sell in USA I'd make it in the USA where its meant to be safer for production. You think I'll fly from the states make stuff in the Middle East where its far less civilised then fly back to the USA fighting off gate camps and pirates to sell it.
Come on CCP. I hope you really aint thinking of making hi sec manufacturing less efficient. It makes no sense. Actually that exact scenario has been happening in the US for a decade or more. The cost of manufacturing got so high due to labor costs that the owners of many companies have either shipped their produ tion lines to Asia or have completely sold their company to a foriegn investor. Precisely.
Think about where Nike makes their shoes, and why.
On another note, CCP has already stated that they will be taking a look at the mechanics involved in getting rid of abandoned POS's... so we'll see what (if anything) comes from that. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Zeera Tomb-Raider
Card Shark Industries
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:34:00 -
[135] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:After reading the Dev Blog, just considering what will this actually mean, and I am thinking perhaps this is partly to try and make high sec manufacturing extremely uneconomical. It all depends on what CCP will set for the cost and how much it increases based upon the number of people wanting to use the station. Any chance you can give us the formula CCP as right now the repercussion are a little hazy? So, is this now going to make high sec manufacturing now not so desirable? After all, this could be a big buff to low sec if all industrialists will have to relocate out there to get good a decent profit margin. Also - "Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements" This is going to be interesting. Devblog - Building Better Worlds Missions will be pointless to do nowe LP was just a nice bonus for working on standings,do incursions in sted you make 70-100m houer and can just bay any faction stuff you want on marked,working on standings just to gain better refining yeld when they nowe nerf that to.this risk vs reward thing are retarted in this game its safer erning 100m houer doing incursion than it is to solo mine in a 0.5 sec system. |
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
107
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:39:00 -
[136] - Quote
My bet is that major nullsec alliance leadership is mainly interested in maintaining ther Internet Spaceship power - 'cause its gratifying.
Power means:
1) ISK 2) Warm bodies
To attract and retain warm bodies you have to make sure they're having fun.
So... since controlling ALL highsec moons is neither profitable nor fun I doubt major alliances are interested.
Controlling every moon within a few jumps of Jita may be worthwhile, though |
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
107
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:43:00 -
[137] - Quote
Zeera Tomb-Raider wrote:Missions will be pointless to do nowe LP was just a nice bonus for working on standings Yeah, it could make sense for CCP to still retain some advantage regarding faction standings. For example a significant discount in the new NPC station manufacturing/research fees formula. |
Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
2220
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:51:00 -
[138] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Highsec is now reaping what it had sowed.
Good man!
Personally, I blame hi-sec for everything that is wrong in Eve Online, even that stuff it is not at fault for. This is not a signature. |
DaReaper
Net 7 The Last Brigade
362
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 16:06:00 -
[139] - Quote
TL;DR
To the op, how is this going to kill HS manufacturing? As it stands right now, if you want to say build in jita you have to jump into a que and wait a while to build stuff. Or you move your bp's to another area with more available slots, and then you build and ship it to jita. In this aspect nothing really changes, except, you pay more to build right now in places where all the slots would normally be taken. But, if you take into account the time and price as you searched for a new area to build your item, plus ship it to jita, it might be worth it for you to lose some profit and build it no. Otherwise you do what you do now, move your bpc to another station and build.
The people complaining about Towers. I don't get what the issue is, as I said in another thread about this, if you are smart, you will have time to grab your bp's you have in your tower and get them out of harms way.
But as they are now doing no slots, for most places, you might not even need the HS research tower anymore in the first place. If that's the case them you just store bpc's in yoru tower to build... just like normal. I really don't understand why people see this as a nerf. |
ashley Eoner
305
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 16:25:00 -
[140] - Quote
Slade Trillgon wrote:Thibault Etienne wrote:OK heres perspective. I'm scottish but ill use this exapmple. No offence meant to people in my examples. I know this eve crowd just love to jump on someone.
High sec USA Low sec Middle East Null Sec Somalia and the Africas
If I'm making stuff to sell in USA I'd make it in the USA where its meant to be safer for production. You think I'll fly from the states make stuff in the Middle East where its far less civilised then fly back to the USA fighting off gate camps and pirates to sell it.
Come on CCP. I hope you really aint thinking of making hi sec manufacturing less efficient. It makes no sense. Actually that exact scenario has been happening in the US for a decade or more. The cost of manufacturing got so high due to labor costs that the owners of many companies have either shipped their produ tion lines to Asia or have completely sold their company to a foriegn investor. Bullshit. Labor costs are marginal here as evidenced by google producing phones here and even Apple moving some production back to the states. Mushkin makes excellent SSD drives and memory here in the USA at very competitive prices. It's more like absolute greed and disregard for fellow humanity that has resulted in the offshoring of jobs. "Free trade" , tax havens/breaks, and the short sightedness of corporate management driven by stock pricing has created an incentive to send jobs overseas. |
|
Hal Safon
Morior Invictus.
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 16:34:00 -
[141] - Quote
Malcolm Shinhwa wrote:Dave Stark wrote:i like that the poses don't require absurd standings now, that's nice. I sort of do as well, but what is going to happen if you want a moon and someone else has a POS there is this: 1) Pay 50mil to wardec corp owning POS; 2) Corp owning POS takes down their POS before war starts; 3) Corp owning POS jumps to new corp and throws up new POS at moon at the same time (2) is being completed; 4) Pay 50mil to wardec corp in step 3. 5) Give up on new moon.
I have to imagine there will be a mechanic introduced to avoid this abuse. |
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
107
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 16:51:00 -
[142] - Quote
Hal Safon wrote:Malcolm Shinhwa wrote:Dave Stark wrote:i like that the poses don't require absurd standings now, that's nice. I sort of do as well, but what is going to happen if you want a moon and someone else has a POS there is this: 1) Pay 50mil to wardec corp owning POS; 2) Corp owning POS takes down their POS before war starts; 3) Corp owning POS jumps to new corp and throws up new POS at moon at the same time (2) is being completed; 4) Pay 50mil to wardec corp in step 3. 5) Give up on new moon. I have to imagine there will be a mechanic introduced to avoid this abuse. Well, anyone can do step 3 and/or try to suicide gank the other Corp's hauler carrying the new tower while the old one is being unanchored.
Seriously though, with so many moons becoming available (remember 0.8-1.0 systems will be 'opened', Tippia estimated 13.000 'new' moons!) if you really want that moon it's not so crazy to occasionally have to play 'who can anchor a new tower first' games. |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
327
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 16:53:00 -
[143] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:[t's more like absolute greed and disregard for fellow humanity that has resulted in the offshoring of jobs. "Free trade" , tax havens/breaks, and the short sightedness of corporate management driven by stock pricing has created an incentive to send jobs overseas.
Eve is a game where we pretend to be immortal beings floating around in space within a set of rules defined by CCP. An attempt at a serious comparison of Eve industry to real life production is a fool's errand.
Immortal beings possessed of absolute greed, and a disregard for fellow humanity. I still don't see how this analogy breaks down.
|
ashley Eoner
306
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 16:56:00 -
[144] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:ashley Eoner wrote:[t's more like absolute greed and disregard for fellow humanity that has resulted in the offshoring of jobs. "Free trade" , tax havens/breaks, and the short sightedness of corporate management driven by stock pricing has created an incentive to send jobs overseas.
Eve is a game where we pretend to be immortal beings floating around in space within a set of rules defined by CCP. An attempt at a serious comparison of Eve industry to real life production is a fool's errand. Immortal beings possessed of absolute greed, and a disregard for fellow humanity. I still don't see how this analogy breaks down. haha I'll give you that. |
Dave Stark
4901
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 17:07:00 -
[145] - Quote
Silvetica Dian wrote:Malcolm Shinhwa wrote:Dave Stark wrote:i like that the poses don't require absurd standings now, that's nice. I sort of do as well, but what is going to happen if you want a moon and someone else has a POS there is this: 1) Pay 50mil to wardec corp owning POS; 2) Corp owning POS takes down their POS before war starts; 3) Corp owning POS jumps to new corp and throws up new POS at moon at the same time (2) is being completed; 4) Pay 50mil to wardec corp in step 3. 5) Give up on new moon. Then i really hope no one is allowed to anchor a POS until they have been in their current corp for 10 days to prevent abuse like this.
look at it from the other side; 50m per day to stop some one using a pos. |
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
107
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 17:22:00 -
[146] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:look at it from the other side; 50m per day to stop some one using a pos. Exactly. Also, no more than 50m once or twice a week would probably be enough to make their POS operations impossibly tedious and unprofitable. |
Dave Stark
4903
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 17:24:00 -
[147] - Quote
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:Dave Stark wrote:look at it from the other side; 50m per day to stop some one using a pos. Exactly. Also, no more than 50m once or twice a week would probably be enough to make their POS operations impossibly tedious and unprofitable.
it's not like it's a situation that can't be countered.
simply grow a pair and defend your [not you specifically, but you get the point] pos.
if some one is unwilling to protect their pos, 50m/24hrs to disrupt them, if not... content creation \o/ |
Zeera Tomb-Raider
Card Shark Industries
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 17:53:00 -
[148] - Quote
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:Zeera Tomb-Raider wrote:Missions will be pointless to do nowe LP was just a nice bonus for working on standings Yeah, it could make sense for CCP to still retain some advantage regarding faction standings. For example a significant discount in the new NPC station manufacturing/research fees formula. I hawe made up may mind going to unsub 5 acconts im don as indi pilot in this game,if all nerfs to hi sec hade been in 1 patch sins i started playin i think they had lost a lott more subs,in sted they nerf hi sec a littel bit ich time they have a bigg update so not hard to se wher this ending, |
Slade Trillgon
Brutor Force Federated
2694
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 17:54:00 -
[149] - Quote
ashley Eoner wrote:Slade Trillgon wrote:Thibault Etienne wrote:OK heres perspective. I'm scottish but ill use this exapmple. No offence meant to people in my examples. I know this eve crowd just love to jump on someone.
High sec USA Low sec Middle East Null Sec Somalia and the Africas
If I'm making stuff to sell in USA I'd make it in the USA where its meant to be safer for production. You think I'll fly from the states make stuff in the Middle East where its far less civilised then fly back to the USA fighting off gate camps and pirates to sell it.
Come on CCP. I hope you really aint thinking of making hi sec manufacturing less efficient. It makes no sense. Actually that exact scenario has been happening in the US for a decade or more. The cost of manufacturing got so high due to labor costs that the owners of many companies have either shipped their produ tion lines to Asia or have completely sold their company to a foriegn investor. Bullshit. Labor costs are marginal here as evidenced by google producing phones here and even Apple moving some production back to the states. Apple's biggest reason for producing in China is that they have essentially slave labor that can be called up in large numbers on demand with little notice and then dismissed when not needed. Mushkin makes excellent SSD drives and memory here in the USA at very competitive prices. It's more like absolute greed and disregard for fellow humanity that has resulted in the offshoring of jobs. "Free trade" , tax havens/breaks, and the short sightedness of corporate management driven by stock pricing has created an incentive to send jobs overseas. Eve is a game where we pretend to be immortal beings floating around in space within a set of rules defined by CCP. An attempt at a serious comparison of Eve industry to real life production is a fool's errand.
I do not disagree with you. Just because I omitted the fact that company owners could have taken a hit to their profit margin to accept the natural rise in labor wages does not disprove the fact that what I said has been happening. Just because some companies are capable of turning a profit manufacturing in the States does not change the fact that much of the manufacturing has been shipped over seas. Where does all of the steel and iron work that used to happen in Pennsylvania occur currently? Please note that I said MANY companies and not ALL companies. |
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
107
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:12:00 -
[150] - Quote
Zeera Tomb-Raider wrote:Gully Alex Foyle wrote:Zeera Tomb-Raider wrote:Missions will be pointless to do nowe LP was just a nice bonus for working on standings Yeah, it could make sense for CCP to still retain some advantage regarding faction standings. For example a significant discount in the new NPC station manufacturing/research fees formula. I hawe made up may mind going to unsub 5 acconts im don as indi pilot in this game,if all nerfs to hi sec hade been in 1 patch sins i started playin i think they had lost a lott more subs,in sted they nerf hi sec a littel bit ich time they have a bigg update so not hard to se wher this ending, ? Can't really see how this is related to my post suggesting CCP could think of a way to preserve some of the value of faction standings (given so many people - not me, btw - invested heaps of time in it).
Why do you think highsec is being nerfed? And even if it is, what's preventing you from being a lowsec, nullsec or WH indy pilot? Combat PVP is fantastic but in no way a prerequisite for successful living out of highsec. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |