What do you think of extending the office rent mechanism to manufacturing/research slot cost? I.e. if all slots are in use the cost per hour increases. Would that fix (even partially) this issue? Or would that perhaps hit new players too hard? I have no idea what new players would consider too high a price for a M/R slot.

In order to make productive professions viable in 0.0, CCP would literally have to pay people, and pay them quite a bit, to do them there to make them competitive with the incredible subsidies that hi-sec gets. Since I'm not in favour of nerfing anything out of spite or the sheer lack of willingness to think of reasonable alternatives, I'd be delighted to incorporate your suggestions instead.

When you make them, please bear in mind that hi-sec production is done in stations that are provided for free, instead of costing 10s of billions of ISK, use of the production lines is so cheap it might as well be free, the stations can never change hands so there's no risk of being locked out and losing your investment or even having to spend the time to set up your supply chain again, there are no sovereignty bills or sov structure investments, there are multiple stations in a single system, reducing travel overhead and risk, CONCORD deter attack 24/7, for free, 100% refineries are readily available with minimum investment and skills.... and so on. All of that has a quantifiable value as a subsidy. A large value.

There are only so many efficiency advantages CCP can give to 0.0 industry. Somewhere along the line I simply can't see an alternative to reducing the subsidies that hi-sec industry gets. If you can provide one, then I will tip my hat to you, sir.

EDIT: To anticipate the reply which I suspect you will make, the value of Technetium has been reduced by almost 2/3 last I checked. I don't anticipate that hi-sec industry will need a nerf nearly as strong as that.

With really good skills, NPC corp standing and a 50% base output NPC station you can now actually get a 100% refinery output.

I still disagree with nerfing high-sec production to create demand for null-sec production. As it is, the main reason for null production is a logistics base closer to home for the null alliances. There's no need to force the carebears into null using market pressure. High-sec industry players will hate it, a lot...

As it is, the wind seems to be blowing against a high-sec nerf. The latest patch added more manufacturing lines to high-sec space, and .

I respect your position, and I sincerely hope to see more null-sec buffs and features. But I can't agree with doing it at the expense of high-sec.

A possible long-term improvement to player-owned outposts would be modular or upgradable outposts, just like the coming modular POSes. Perhaps billions of ISK could be invested to add yet even more research/manufacturing slots and/or improve refining efficiency.

I still disagree with nerfing high-sec production to create demand for null-sec production. As it is, the main reason for null production is a logistics base closer to home for the null alliances. There's no need to force the carebears into null using market pressure. High-sec industry players will hate it, a lot.

I respect your position, and I sincerely hope to see more null-sec buffs and features. But I can't agree with doing it at the expense of high-sec.

So given the fact that I can find a system in hisec within 2 jumps of Jita with more industrial capacity than most regions in nullsec, with perfect refinery, mostly safe transport etc, all for free (I call paying 2k to manufacture a maelstrom in 3 hours and in perfect safety "free"), what sort of buffs and features should nullsec get to incentivize people like me back into nullsec with my industrial alts? Keep in mind that we'd prefer to avoid powercreep if we can.

Sorry, you won't be getting my vote.
Our conversations have lead me to believe that you are the trying to play the "moderate" in the war of null sec against high sec.

Rest of the world, excuse the u.s.- centric analogy, but If the goons and their ilk are the Tea Party, you are Romney.
The fact that you posted on the goons' version of Pravda DOES mean you are affiliated with them, or have like-minded views.

And their views on the game are well-documented, which is the destruction of all space that they cannot control in game.
Putting you on the CSM would be no better, nor no worse, than most of the existing null sec mouthpieces.

I simply don't believe we need more null sec mouthpieces who espouse "balancing the game" at the expense of high sec.
If we went with representation by demographics, fully half of the CSM would be high sec.

Instead, we are faced with likely 9-12 of the 14 being null sec zealots or so-called null sec "moderates", which although you have never called yourself one, you have certainly done the dance of one, until you are of course elected.

One often hears that there is no reason to leave the hi-sec 'bubble' as it has missions, wardecs, decent asteroids to mine, good manufacturing facilities etc.

Might it not be the case that if null-sec were to get decent manufacturing slots etc, that it might also become a self-contained 'bubble' in the Eve universe, with no need for the different 'bubbles' to interact?

I ask this, not because I do not think null-sec needs to be seriously buffed/overhauled, but because whatever is done, it needs to ensure that the different security levels need to interact as much as possible.

If I may ask Malcanis, how would you ensure that the interaction between the different security levels develop?

You're seriously not on Twitter? A candidate who is not on Twitter is a candidate with no intention of communicating with the players.

Hi Malcanis, just read all 21 pages of your thread so far, your articles and specially the high sec manifest. You write very well, clear thinking. I like it. I do not agree with every small detail but in general is very good and I can identify with it.

Since I'm running I should not be saying this, but you will make an excellent CSM member, I feel I'm not running against you but with you.

Hope I can get in and work with you in the CSM, with your vision for Eve, starting with high sec, and my determination to fix industry, Eve is going to become an awesome game to play in the next 10 years.

You will be in my top 5 pics for sure.

PS: I read your comment in my thread and posted something, is not about difficulty, is about specialization.

Who?

longpost

I will communicate with the players about EVE & the CSM right here on the EVE-O website, not require them to go hunting about over the internet.

After doing more research on the matter, I can see the problems with an over-attractive high-sec: particularly the "lack of a proper pvp foodchain"
I concede that high-sec needs to be nerfed.

What do you think of this draft proposal:
Proposal to declare war on individuals.

You're seriously not on Twitter? A candidate who is not on Twitter is a candidate with no intention of communicating with the players.

He's got twenty pages here - more than any other candidate so far, although he was one of the first to post - of him replying to questions. You could try not being disingenuous or making sweeping and absurd assertions every once in awhile, you know.

You're seriously not on Twitter? A candidate who is not on Twitter is a candidate with no intention of communicating with the players.

Twitter and its character limits are a huge barrier to actual non-one-liner communication. I'd take a forum presence over Twitter any day of the week.

He's got twenty pages here - more than any other candidate so far, although he was one of the first to post - of him replying to questions. You could try not being disingenuous or making sweeping and absurd assertions every once in awhile, you know.

]Many have both, plus more. Twitter is an easy way to get a hold of someone. For someone to link important announcement and posts. And to have some short conversations.

Yes. It's entirely absurd to be on the forums and Twitter. You're so absurd, Mynnna. Every major candidate, but Malcanis, is so damned absurd.