0/10

0/10

That's the depth I was expecting from the reply.

Yep, look at all the different Mackinaws in the belts.

Yeah, go miners ! Gotta love those EHP buffs.

I suggest you re-read my post.

Never in that post I stated it's convenient or even good to "let the industrialist come", I just mentioned at the *stigma*, which is a different shade of approach towards the same guy.

It mirrors the depth of your post.

People tend to project failings in game design as moral weakness of the person effected. You included.

I let the developers plan their game, I guess I am doing something wrong.

Should jump in the forums and create 100000000000000 photocopy cry threads to force them change the game ASAP, of course in my favor!

EVE Online is a massive multiplayer online game that offers limitless potential to discover, explore and conquer an amazing science fiction universe where you pilot spaceships, fight, trade, and form corporations and alliances with other players.

So as the old expression goes "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs"

That's why imo CCP should have a cautious approach, breaking too many eggs can break the bank. Had they had a public plan detailing a transition from the hybrid "safe zones + unsafe" towards a full PvP game then people could see it coming and would have acted accordingly years ago.

It's all a matter of timing.

For the fairest game possible, hi sec should only have been a couple of starting systems. After a decade and having designed the whole game on hi sec being the center of a center-periphery model, breaking few eggs will actually break more than few.

There's a lot of decisions thet were taken and cannot be wiped out.
Imagine this, CCP put themselves in a corner with AFK mining. With the small playerbase they closed one or two eyes for years about botters and even now the big subs numbers come from multi-accounters.
This is bad, because every multi-accounter (and miners are some of the most prolific) that unsubs, it's suddenly 3-4-6 subs that go.
Now, after having grabbed and held those multi-accounts are you sure they are going to abruptly change the status quo and suddenly lose them? I would not bet on that.
I would not also bet on CCP saying "let's nuke all those hi seccers from orbit, we didn't want their subs anyway".

That's why imo CCP should have a cautious approach, breaking too many eggs can break the bank. Had they had a public plan detailing a transition from the hybrid "safe zones + unsafe" towards a full PvP game then people could see it coming and would have acted accordingly years ago.
But now? With subs peaked and now barely keeping their numbers up? Unlikely they can afford to break eggs.
They may just want to see what happens creating homelettes in null first and see what happens next.

As to us multi accounters, have you considered that those of us who are throwing cash into the game hand over fist already make enough isk that the change would actually be a welcome one as it allows us to further specialize in industry and allows us to run a hi-sec pos if we chose to for the right reason. Profit.

So no I think CCP is very safe with multi-account industrialists who will be able to outlay some isk to gain a larger profit margin over those that only dabble in industry.

And this has nothing to do with nuking Hi-sec it is about changing players to POS rather than the NPC stations. So stop bothering with that one as it is just a pointless emotional argument.

You (and others who seem to have convinced you) are so convinced that having people run POSes is some magic cure. Let me tell something as someone who had a BPC research service for years (now I can't be arsed, I can earn more with trading):

It's not. Putting up a POS is as easy as creating a 1 man corp to evade NPC corp taxes. You pay 200M (if you don't have 7+ standings) and pronto, with 50M you have bought a small caldari tower and 80-90M you get a lab.

Moreover, the more POSes are put in game, the safest it becomes having one, because the individual becomes "hidden" within a big number of others.

As I posted many pages ago, I am ALL for "nerfing" hi sec NPC facilities so that who use them has to pay as much as POS owners. That's a far harsher nerf than those asked for in this thread.

I am still completely not convinced that this would change anything in the hi sec vs null sec competitivity matters.
It's a long due thing but not a solution.

Actually it is not a magic cure it is fair, yes you can dodge taxes in a 1 man corporation and yes if there are more POSs you will be safer as there is safety in numbers but given the fact that War decing a 1 man corp costs little and a 1 man corp has no defense it is only a matter of time before someone decides to splat your POS. It makes good kill board padding for budding pvp corps.

Plus to put up your POS in Hi-sec you have to have worked up your standings so while you may have evaded what is currently a tiny amount of tax you have risked hundreds of millions of isk and had to build up your standings or if you paid someone else you have still had to outlay hundreds of millions of isk and the hundred of millions well actually about 1 billion to run it for a year.

So yes if people go for the one man corp to dodge taxes or as i said earlier so that it is cheaper to run a POS, great. They are having to out lay isk and assuming risk to get a reasonable benefit back, .

As to what is asked for in this thread, there is a lot over the whole but I specifically asked for the NPC cost of a slot to be the running cost of a POS divided by the average slots (assuming some defense) +10% so they are 10% more than a POS as the cost is not ongoing.

So to sum it up in a nut shell players who dabble in manufacturing will be almost the same as players who are fully invested into it, the only difference being that those with a POS will require less skills for perfect refine and no standings (If they pay to have the tower put up) and an on going bill while people who dabble will have more waste unless they skill up higher but lower over all costs.

Hey I debunked that Baltec1 invented fallacy 3-4 times in the last weeks, you may as well find those references instead of going cassette playback mode.

Why don't you guys just do another Jitageddon about it all? Best form of a temper tantrum I have seen to date.

Actually Alliances like GS will actually suffer due to there reputations in getting enough hard core Indy types, the smaller less known alliances will probably get more as the players will be less worried about getting out there only to be blown up by GS.

GS reputation will have preceded it, except apparently by people wanting a third party for titans.

e: Regarding hilarious and arbitrary sandbox restrictions ("You can only take 5% of space" lol), who here remembers when CCP implemented a limit of five POS per day per system in an attempt to limit things? Yeah that worked out great.

You seem really bitter.

I wonder why that is...

NC dot guy.

Yet you believe doing all that long list of stuff in one chunk will work out well.

Lots of cahnge all at once is indeed a bad idea most of the time but at least implementing some to see what results happen would be a starting point. Ramping up te cost to use production lines in high sec so it's about the same as the upkeep on a POS would be a good start. It would not fix the lack of lines issue in null but it would at least make the cost closer. Null would still have a higher cost on security (keeping that POS in a single piece) and logistic (getting all the darn trit there). High sec would not really be impacted beside the increase price in finished product price going up a bit to cover the extra expense.

If this ever happen, the best way to do it would be as stealth as possible so the impact come fast. If it's announced months in advance, people will stock up on finished product like crazy to benefit from the price hike hiding the real results for some time. The real results need to be seen fast on the large scale so we know it it solved something of it it broke something. Then you can work from that point.

So, you support those who create game balance based on who cries louder on the forums? Got it.

Nobody here is crying except for those who want to maintain the status quo. We're presenting reasoned arguments here, in the hopes that CCP will listen to our logic.

And reasoned arguments have been made against it. I trust CCP won't do anything radical.

Actually not. We have plenty of players who are or would be industrial minded in the alliance already, if only doing it didn't drive one to insanity.

That's something you and many others don't seem to get. Many of us advocating for these changes don't give a rip about attracting new players to nullsec and frankly know it won't happen, but already have players who would take advantage of it. If it does happen, great. New blood is always good. It's just not the primary goal.


e: Regarding hilarious and arbitrary sandbox restrictions ("You can only take 5% of space" lol), who here remembers when CCP implemented a limit of five POS per day per system in an attempt to limit things? Yeah that worked out great.

And reasoned arguments have been made against it. I trust CCP won't do anything radical.

"ZOMG everyone will unsubscribe" is not a reasoned argument.