|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |

Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
483
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 20:32:00 -
[1] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn wrote: We don't build **** in the US, we build in 3rd world or emergent countries. Like China, where they intentially control their economy to keep the value of their currency and inflation down, so that they are the prefered place to produce goods.
Sov holders should have the ability to act like China. They can either make thier space the prefered place to build, or they can develop along another line, like an emphasis on PvE.
http://en.mercopress.com/2011/03/15/china-became-world-s-top-manufacturing-nation-ending-110-year-us-leadership
So "not building crap in the US" means that China's total manufacturing (including for internal consumption) only passed US manufacturing in the last couple of years.
Of course, it isn't like China hasn't been a relatively stable country (with brief interruptions) for thousands of years now, so China would be a better analog for highsec than even the US.
Perhaps more appropriate to the point you wish to make would be to compare the manufacturing capacity of a region like Africa or Central America that has been subject to more political upheaval recently to the stable economies of China, North America, and Europe? http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |

Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
487
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 14:59:00 -
[2] - Quote
If nullsec gets industry on par with highsec, what reason will there be for trade between nullsec and highsec? http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm
Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |

Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
489
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 15:59:00 -
[3] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Buzzy Warstl wrote:If nullsec gets industry on par with highsec, what reason will there be for trade between nullsec and highsec? The same reason as now: to exchange materials and goods. Yeah, but now there's stuff that it isn't practical to make in nullsec (possible, but not practical, especially in the desired quantities).
That's a pretty big driver for trade right there.
If I follow a lot of the suggestions between this thread and others, lower payouts in highsec, higher production in nullsec, and the result is less of a market for high-end nullsec products in highsec and less of a need for highsec products in nullsec.
This dramatically reduces trade incentives between the regions.
This might be good or bad depending on your perspective, but it would be a dramatic change in the nature of the game for everyone. http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm
Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |

Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
489
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 17:03:00 -
[4] - Quote
One person's problem is another's opportunity.
What you describe in your post is not inaccurate, but you need to think a bit more about why things are the way they are before diagnosing the situation as a problem. http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm
Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |

Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
490
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 20:10:00 -
[5] - Quote
Natsett Amuinn: Let me try that again. I agree with your facts, but I disagree with the conclusions you draw from them.
If Jita did not exist we would need to create it all over again, and we would, because having a main trade hub is too useful for us to do without it. Given a main trade hub, manufacturing close to that hub has major advantages, to the point where if costs close to that hub are artificially raised to the point that manufacturing far from the hub has serious profit advantages the hub itself will move to where the costs are lower (I haven't been to Shanghai, but I'd wager good money that you can find things in the markets there that are difficult to find in New York, and flat impossible to find in Houston).
One of the key elements in the industrial equation is "risk of loss", which is why you don't hear about Ford building new factories in northern Africa, despite the availability of cheap land and labor and convenient access to global markets. http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm
Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |

Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
490
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 20:55:00 -
[6] - Quote
The markets only a few jumps from Jita are connected differently than the nullsec regions supported by it.
At 30 jumps from Jita, I would argue that you are only served by Jump Freighter traffic, so those 30 jumps are only 4 or 5 in practical terms, and the nature of a nullsec market is sufficiently differentiated from that of a highsec market that you are likely to be getting a significant discount over what you would pay were it an open market. http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm
Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |

Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
490
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:51:00 -
[7] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Yonis Kador wrote:Though I'm sure the low-sec, gate-camping lobby would love to see dozens of freighters loaded with expensive goods passing by daily, the suggestion doesn't alter the reality that some of these ideas aren't just game-altering - they're potentially game-breaking. But debating this particular point is kinda silly, as CCP will never force all of high sec into low to manufacture goods. High sec pays their salaries and I'm sure they're keenly aware of the value those players represent.
YK It's been said a few times, but I'll say it again just to help you out personally: the aim isn't to "force" anyone anywhere, it's to stop people being "forced" into hi-sec if they want to produce anything except supercaps or ratting ammo. 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. http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |

Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
491
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 16:33:00 -
[8] - 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 |

Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
493
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 01:01:00 -
[9] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Wigglenomics wrote:which is, from my experience, safer than highsec. No it isn't. The only area of space more dangerous than nullsec is lowsec. WH space would like a word with you. http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |

Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
496
|
Posted - 2013.03.02 02:02:00 -
[10] - Quote
I still say it's impossible to accomplish what the nullsec people want out of the game by nerfing highsec, and that anybody who thinks it is needs to take a couple actual courses in economics and sociology so they understand what's going on better than they seem to.
Let's start with the most obvious and trivial point: CCP didn't create trade hubs. CCP didn't decide that Jita was going to be the main trade hub and set things up so that it would happen. If I recall correctly the main trade hub used to be in a system that's now a lowsec system (before my time, I can look it up if people think it's important that I know the details).
Anybody who thinks that there is any way short of making the game unplayable by anyone to break the pattern of having a main trade hub somewhere in the safest space available and starts making suggestions that involve that not being the case really doesn't have a good grasp of the problem space. http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm
Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |
|

Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
499
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 02:50:00 -
[11] - Quote
Tesal wrote:Malcanis wrote: ...Why would it be so conceptually difficult to transition the player economy away from NPC manufacturing facilities? You would need a large number of POS to make up for NPC slots. POS suck and are an option of last resort in my opinion. Maybe the goal is to make hi-sec suck so much that people give up on industry, then hi-sec will be equal to null. Crush the plebes in hi-sec. Wipe the floor with them. The theme continues. "Anchor anywhere" POSes with even limited manufacturing capability could easily give that.
But first we'd need the POS update.
Then we'd need to see them spread around, and people complaining about POSes being everywhere, and highsec systems being chock-a-block with useless phallic POSes in the most unsightly locations.
*Then* we'd have the player infrastructure in place to be able to supplant NPC manufacturing facilities.
I actually look forward to it, and lots of other changes. http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm
Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |

Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
500
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 14:50:00 -
[12] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Stray Bullets wrote: CONs Would make it impossible for the casual player to compete with a dedicated and indy focused player/corp/alliance....
 Sound like a very bad change. Although you seem quite happy for that situation to apply to manufacturers who aren't in hi-sec. I guess this is a case of "**** you, got mine", eh? Those facilities are available to nullsec players, also, at the same bargain price. You could even make use of lowsec NPC facilities and never be more than a couple of jumps either way between your market and your manufacturing without having to do a single gate traversal.
You don't even need an alt to take advantage of this, so why the sour grapes? http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm
Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |

Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
500
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 16:58:00 -
[13] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:I haven't said I am against improving areas of the game (0.0 industry). Except that you have, because you're refusing to accept a nerf to highsec. You can't improve 0.0 industry without nerfing highsec. That's what this entire thread has been about and it's been demonstrated repeatedly. Pretending that something must be torn down to make something else better is the sign of a serious lack of imagination, or a simple desire for destruction.
The only problem with highsec industry is *anyone* can use it, and there is enough of it that there is no DOS attack that can be truly effective against that state of affairs.
Almost like it was designed to be that way so that no group of players could take control of that portion of the game completely. http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm
Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |

Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
502
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 18:11:00 -
[14] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Buzzy Warstl wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:I haven't said I am against improving areas of the game (0.0 industry). Except that you have, because you're refusing to accept a nerf to highsec. You can't improve 0.0 industry without nerfing highsec. That's what this entire thread has been about and it's been demonstrated repeatedly. Pretending that something must be torn down to make something else better is the sign of a serious lack of imagination, or a simple desire for destruction. Pretending that equalising two unequal things equates to "a simple desire for destruction" is flat out dishonest. Well, tell me what you can make in highsec that you *can't* in nullsec.
For the number of nullsec players, if all there was to be made was things that can be made and used in highsec there would be quite adequate manufacturing capacity.
But the simple truth is that there are things that can't be made in highsec, that can't be made in station manufacturing slots even in nullsec, and that are higher priority goods for nullsec manufacturing than the items that can be made in NPC highsec stations.
Yet somehow nullsec manufacturing is inferior.
Pull the other one, it's got bells on it. http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm
Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |

Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
502
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 19:00:00 -
[15] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Buzzy Warstl wrote:Well, tell me what you can make in highsec that you *can't* in nullsec. Anything for free, at any time, completely safe, with no hassle and logistical obstacles. Quote:Yet somehow nullsec manufacturing is inferior. Yes, largely because the quality isn't determined by what you can and can't build. The simple truth is that manufacturing in nullsec is inferior in pretty much every way it could conceivably be inferior, and buffing your way out of that isn't going to work. So, the huge fleets of capital ships and supercaps that exist in nullsec are there because it isn't practical to make T1 and T2 subcaps in sovereign nullsec?
That's a relief to know.
How many battle cruisers worth of materials and time goes into the production of a single titan?
[edit] and yes, I am familiar with overhead, are you familiar with "disingenuous"? http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm
Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |

Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
502
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 19:18:00 -
[16] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Buzzy Warstl wrote:So, the huge fleets of capital ships and supercaps that exist in nullsec are there because it isn't practical to make T1 and T2 subcaps in sovereign nullsec? No, they're there because they need to be there. One has nothing to do with the other. Quote:How many battle cruisers worth of materials and time goes into the production of a single titan? A lot. It doesn't change the fact that it's better to build those BCs in high and then importing them. In fact, the two are pretty much completely disconnected from each other for game-mechanical reasons. You say those words, yet I know for fact that there exist industrialists that would happily take on the risks of nullsec industry for T1 and T2 production if it wasn't for "higher priority jobs": capital and supercap production.
Do you think that this prioritization would magically change if highsec had less productive capability? Would it change if nullsec had more?
How much more of a market is there for capital ship production right now?
Quote:Quote:and yes, I am familiar with overhead, are you familiar with "disingenuous"? How can we not, when you provide such ample example of it? No, the presence of cap production does not make null industry better than high. It makes null production as horrible as ever, but it's what you have to employ in order to build the null-only products, and it's that horribleness that makes it far better to import just about all goods except maybe battleships (and even then, it's iffy). You are right, capital ship production doesn't make nullsec industry better, nor does drug production or moon mining, what it makes nullsec industry is qualitatively different.
You don't fix qualitative differences with quantity. It just doesn't work that way. http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm
Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |

Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
502
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 19:41:00 -
[17] - Quote
Stray Bullets wrote:Buzzy Warstl wrote:Tippia wrote:Buzzy Warstl wrote:So, the huge fleets of capital ships and supercaps that exist in nullsec are there because it isn't practical to make T1 and T2 subcaps in sovereign nullsec? No, they're there because they need to be there. One has nothing to do with the other. Quote:How many battle cruisers worth of materials and time goes into the production of a single titan? A lot. It doesn't change the fact that it's better to build those BCs in high and then importing them. In fact, the two are pretty much completely disconnected from each other for game-mechanical reasons. You say those words, yet I know for fact that there exist industrialists that would happily take on the risks of nullsec industry for T1 and T2 production if it wasn't for "higher priority jobs": capital and supercap production. Do you think that this prioritization would magically change if highsec had less productive capability? Would it change if nullsec had more? You are absolutely clueless! :) You don't build anything below BS in nullsec, at least with intention of competing on your local trade hub. People hauling stuff in from empire will whip your ass silly and you'll have a **** ton of work for very very little profit. The amounts they can haul in, at the prices they can make it, simply kills any kind of prospect for building hulls in nullsec. For modules it's even worse! A single JF run can stock a market with T2 modules for a week or more. To build these modules you'd need basically all the ******* slots in the region. You should do some research before posting out of your ass :) You should do some research as well, those POS manufacturing slots that are dedicated to titans could be as many as 60 module manufacturing slots. Each.
The amount of manufacturing capacity tied up in making supercaps is a lot more than most people understand it to be, and it is one of the reasons that nullsec industry for anything else is a hot mess for anyone not intimately involved in the capital ship production chain.
http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm
Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |

Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
502
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 19:48:00 -
[18] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:You are right, capital ship production doesn't make nullsec industry better, nor does drug production or moon mining, what it makes nullsec industry is qualitatively different.
You don't fix qualitative differences with quantity. It just doesn't work that way. GǪand that's why no-one is suggesting anything of the kind either, and why you can stop with the nonsensical straw men. What people are discussing is making nullsec just as good as (or, preferably, better than) highsec so that it becomes a valid, non-stupid choice to do your production there. This is in part a question of quantity GÇö hence the repeated references to GÇ£availabilityGÇ¥ GÇö but also one of many different costs. Both prongs need to be adjusted on both ends to create a competitive balance. Nonsensical strawmen like sharply reducing the quantity of NPC manufacturing slots, suggested repeatedly (even in this thread!). Or simply increasing the number of manufacturing slots available in nullsec (also a quantitative solution).
That's trying to fix a perceived problem in nullsec manufacturing due to it having different qualities by changing the quantity of manufacturing slots in nullsec or highsec.
The problem isn't at all that there is too much highsec manufacturing, or that there is too little nullsec manufacturing, it is people expecting to do the sorts of manufacturing in one part of the game that they can in another when the game is specifically designed to make manufacturing in those regions different.
If you want to be doing industry in a part of the game that has an exclusive on a particular industrial process, and you don't want to be involved in that particular process, you are doing it wrong. http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm
Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |

Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
503
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 20:29:00 -
[19] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Buzzy Warstl wrote:You should do some research as well, those POS manufacturing slots that are dedicated to titans could be as many as 60 module manufacturing slots. Each.
The amount of manufacturing capacity tied up in making supercaps is a lot more than most people understand it to be GǪand still doesn't compete with the production of other goods or use up capacity that could be put to use elsewhere. Because if it did, the production it would put a stop to would be the on going on in highsec. Why would it?
Highsec is its own market, with orders of magnitude more customers than nullsec has. The nullsec consumers of highsec products are a small fraction of the total market.
The things that can be produced only in nullsec also are largely consumed in nullsec (with some lowsec customers).
The claim of an imbalance between nullsec and highsec industry is poorly supported, to be perfectly honest, there is just the small matter of highsec being underpopulated right now so there is still excess capacity in the system.
As long as EvE keeps growing that surplus will get used up.
It sounds like what you and Malcanis really want is the POS update, so that player owned manufacturing can be extended. You should consider advocating for that since CCP has stated repeatedly that it is a direction they would like to go. http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm
Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |

Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
503
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 02:34:00 -
[20] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:CCP I request a downvote button specifically for Buzzy Warstl's posts.
I haven't seen so much kneejerk since they decided to buff mining barges and exhumers. The truth hurts that much?
I haven't seen so much parochial thinking since last time I browsed the WoW boards.
Nullsec has the most access, the most things that can be done, industry that is pulled many different ways by the demands of supercap production, moon mining, and drug production in addition to local production of things they can perfectly well produce and import from lowsec (where there are *quite* adequate production facilities at highsec prices without the need to brave a single gate camp for access)).
The only reason I can see for this crusade to gut highsec industry is that there are too many production lines to do a full manipulation to lock people out with the resources they have at the moment, because everything they are asking for but that they already have. http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |
|

Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
503
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 03:15:00 -
[21] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Buzzy Warstl wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:CCP I request a downvote button specifically for Buzzy Warstl's posts.
I haven't seen so much kneejerk since they decided to buff mining barges and exhumers. The truth hurts that much? I haven't seen so much parochial thinking since last time I browsed the WoW boards. Nullsec has the most access, the most things that can be done, industry that is pulled many different ways by the demands of supercap production, moon mining, and drug production in addition to local production of things they can perfectly well produce and import from lowsec (where there are *quite* adequate production facilities at highsec prices without the need to brave a single gate camp for access)). The only reason I can see for this crusade to gut highsec industry is that there are too many production lines to do a full manipulation to lock people out with the resources they have at the moment, because everything they are asking for but that they already have. Nice buzzwords, buzzy. Doesn't change the facts of the matter though. Doesn't change a thing, I think it's a much better description than anybody else has managed yet, though.
Really, looking at the realities, and the resources that are available to nullsec players, the whole "nerf highsec industry" thing is nonsense of the first order: the sort of thing that players come up with when they are bored. http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |
|
|
|