Snow Axe wrote:
I'm sorry to keep harping on it, but your own presentation of the issue in this document suggests that you don't actually understand why mineral compression even exists, let alone what the positives/negatives of it are. That's something far too large to chalk up to "getting lost in the weeds".
I'm sorry too ;p
Frankly, the way you keep on it suggests to me YOU dont know why mineral compression exists. It exists because way way way way back at the dawn of EVE (before cap ships, let along outposts and supers) CCP made Magic Modules that refine for a larger volume of minerals than the item itself.
Today, players take advantage of this by buying these modules in empire and jumping them out to 0.0 where they are refined and reused for things that can't be purchased from empire (supercaps, for instance) as well as to fill in gaps in producing common daily needs (ammo) because there is no incentive to mine low end minerals in 0.0. This gap exists because CCP has neglected 0.0 broadly and its industrial self sufficiency in particular.
You seem to be under the impression Magic Modules were intentionally put in by CCP to support 0.0 industry. Rather it was just a lack of foresight that players have been taking advantage of to compensate for the lack of 0.0 industrial capacity and viable 0.0 low end mining.
If 0.0 had viable, high-volume sources of low end minerals that players would WANT to mine (which is exactly what the example which references mineral compression includes as its
headline feature) there's really no reason for Magic Modules to continue to exist. As significant a portion of the player base would like compression removed for one reason or another as want it to stay; if the reason why 0.0 players "need" it were to finally get addressed, both groups could have their concerns laid to rest.
This supports the approach/theme reinforced throughout the entire document: finally commit to addressing long standing sucking chest-wound level problems with EVE's core mechanics, and do so in a way that appeals to mutliple sections of the playerbase (both in activity area and demographic).It's unfortunate that message was lost in your attachment to a small part of one of three examples included to illustrate what that approach could look like in an actual EVE Online expansion. I am, however, thankful for your feedback and the feedback of the rest of the players on both the approach advocated and on the merits of specific recommendations. I would like to reinforce the points made by corestwo and Seleene that if a serious response from CCP is desired, keeping the discussion constructive and somewhat focused on forest vs the trees is important.