I'd rather increase highsec slot costs than reduce capacity too much. The latter just locks out newbie/casual manufacturing even more. So the guy who just finished the Industry career tutorial can buy a small rig BPO and crank out some rigs for fun and profit. But if you want to mass produce battleships, the cost should be very noticeable indeed.

Any fee that would allow Null to be competitive without reducing the slots in HS would lock out newbies just as effectively as a wait time.
Remember, Competitive Manufacturing in Nullsec has to pay for 2 way transport in a JF.
But at least we're getting somewhere.

In my very first post in this thread I proposed how to fix null without nerfing high.

I'd rather increase highsec slot costs than reduce capacity too much. The latter just locks out newbie/casual manufacturing even more. So the guy who just finished the Industry career tutorial can buy a small rig BPO and crank out some rigs for fun and profit. But if you want to mass produce battleships, the cost should be very noticeable indeed.

Of course you are. Why else are you bringing it up in a thread that has nothing to do with that topic other than to make sure the whinging is omnipresent?

On reflection, the OP mentions ganking a lot, so how does bringing it up have nothing to do with the thread? Maybe OP shouldn't bring it up?

Also, OP doesn't even mention industry anywhere, but since that seems to be the topic now, I would like to add that CCP can do all the tweaks they like, and maybe down the line, all major industry will be conducted in null.

In other games I played, they had limits on how much you could blob, with mechanics to discourage blobbing. I think if the focus shifted to this, rather than people whining about how high sec has all the industry, then we would get somewhere, and null would be truly improved.

And if you are right, and the blue donut zone is about to descend into a chaotic warzone, then I apologise.

I wouldn't mess with the base cost of 1000+333/hr too much for the simplest of jobs. A cap on Material Efficiency would do a much better job. The cool thing about small newbie friendly jobs like small rigs is that ME is almost irrelevant because the quantities are tiny.
Either that, or split manufacturing slots by category and increase install fees considerably for the more advanced items.

The end goal of an industry revamp in null-sec is that it should be more worthwhile to build battleships and other high-volume items locally than it should be to import them. Right now, that's not the case. The reason why is a matter of volume movement. If I want sixty battleships in VFK, I buy them in Jita, load them up in a jump freighter, and jump to VFK. It takes about nine round trips total, plus five trips by freighter from Jita to my jump-out point.

What if I want to build those? Well, first I buy all the minerals... not to build sixty Maelstroms, but to build 6,250 425 mm Railgun Is. The mineral content for that many Maelstroms is about 8.5 million m3, so moving them raw via jump freighter is not economical. Compression is required. So, I make nine freighter trips between Jita and my build station, and spend a few days building them. Then I make a freighter trip to my jump-out point, and from there a single jump freighter trip up to Goon space to a refining station. Once there, I refine the railguns, achieving 100% yield, as I've invested in the extra training and implants required to do so in the subpar facilities found in null-sec. Unfortunately, this isn't Empire and you don't get 50 build slots and perfect refines in the same station, so I either have to make nine freighter trips again between my refinery and build station or make do with the two build slots the station has. In either case, I'm likely to have to make four more freighter trips to move the finished battleships from build station to sale hub.

So, let's recap. I can either make four high-sec freighter trips and nine jump freighter trips to import those Maelstroms, or I can make make nine high-sec freighter trips, one jump freighter trip, and then depending on my choices, make anywhere from four to 13 freighter trips and spend four to eight days building, all told. And now you know why almost no major industry takes place in null-sec. The extra time and effort required to build the same number of ships is well worth simply spending 100 million ISK worth of jump fuel to get them now.

Here's the thing, though: no-one is talking about nerfing highsec into oblivion so you can drop your nonsensical strawman. We're talking about nerfing it into equality with null, at least for the aspects where null inherently creates difficulties that can't be solved without completely changing null itself.

Here's the thing, though: I'm not talking about buffing nullsec into uberville either. I'm taking about buffing it into equality with hisec, at least for the aspects where hisec creates whining "nerf hisec industry" threads.

Really, when you shoot down nullsec buffs so you can cling to your "nerf hisec" mantra then that tells us that your real motivation is nothing more than sheer, unabashed spite.

Here's the thing, though: I'm not talking about buffing nullsec into uberville either. I'm taking about buffing it into equality with hisec, at least for the aspects where hisec creates whining "nerf hisec industry" threads.

Really, when you shoot down nullsec buffs

The problem is that it can't be done without nerfing highsec at the same time unless you buff null into uberville. Without built-in duping and infinite ISK and material fauceting, null cannot possibly become equal to high through buffs alone GÇö the mechanics simply forbid it.

My questions has always been this: Why is there a pressing need to make null sec better?

I'm still not entirely convinced nerfing high sec is the answer and that really should be more about increasing potential reward for risk first before thinking about any nerfs since really, but I kind of see what you're getting at.

I know some people in hi-sec are guilty of this too, but they don't usually come in and post threads to make null and low safer or demand that low and null incomes be nerfed

never seen a thread related to 'local', 'blues' or 'moongoo' before
heh

My questions has always been this: Why is there a pressing need to make null sec better? Is it too hard? Are there not enough people to shoot? Do you feel like you should be in hi-sec instead?

1. Because CCP has said that they want Nullsec industry to be competitive with HS.
2. Because literally nothing can compete with HS industry due to game mechanics. (Nothing being able to compete with something is pretty much the definition of something being broken).
3. Because of the principle in EVE's game design that increased risks should bring increased rewards, and Nullsec industry currently turns that on its head.
4. Did I mention that CCP has said that they want Nullsec industry to be competitive with HS?

If that is the case, then why are we arguing about in on the forums?

Because some people believe that balanced gameplay will GÇ£obliterate the economyGÇ¥ and because they are desperately trying to keep it from happening because it will have to entail a few, much-needed, highsec nerfs.

Because some people believe that balanced gameplay will GÇ£obliterate the economyGÇ¥ and because they are desperately trying to keep it from happening because it will have to entail a few, much-needed, highsec nerfs.

The issue of trade hubs being in hi sec will always be the case..

If just nerfs are done, it would.

You'd have shrinking supply from less people willing to do the industry, a shrink from more getting destroyed, increased cost due to lengthy transportation, reduced mining.

I just rather see how far they can bolster null sec first without exploits or new problems being opened up.

As it stands high sec has a steady isk flow for beginning players and I don't think they should mess with that unless its proven necessary.

If just nerfs are done, it would. You'd have shrinking supply from less people willing to do the industry, a shrink from more getting destroyed, increased cost due to lengthy transportation, reduced mining...

any change has to be balanced against those factors which buffs to null sec alone would not cause. Its not that I'm unwilling to see a nerf as I said, I just rather see how far they can bolster null sec first without exploits or new problems being opened up.

That's not a problem. The biggest trade hubs will always be in hisec. Nobody has a problem with that.

Well people compalin they can't compete with Jita

Well people complain they can't compete with Jita

Ok, name some set of Buffs to Nullsec that would allow it to be competitive in industry with HS without nerfing the unlimited, free, risk free, and convenient industry of HS. You keep assuming that this is possible but you haven't presented a single viable idea.

Well people complain they can't compete with Jita and they are right. I just don't think you can do anything about it. The prices will always be lower in trade hubs and people will always go there.

I mean technically null has monopoly on quite a few resources that can only be produced there.

People act like if they Nerfed hi sec, the prices would magically go up and CCP is going to put isk in their wallets.

It still won't happen. Null-sec isn't unified enough to collude on the prices and even if they were, it would only decrease demand.

People's view that Null's economy is skewed based on unrealistic expectation of money they would theoretically make if only CCP would change things.

I've presented plenty of viable ideas, you just ASSUME that they'd do nothing. Quit being a child. Stomping your feet and shouting "IT WOULDN'T WORK" without evidence against is not discussion. Which is exactly what you're doing. You're not presenting anything that shows why it wouldn't work, all you're doing is telling. Show, don't tell