Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 30 .. 31 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2896
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 07:22:00 -
[511] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:[The majority of isk destruction happens in null
Relatively little ISK is destroyed in Null. I mean Sov costs something, but it's small potatoes compared to the scale of other ISK sinks, and is certainly smaller than the insurance faucet caused by all of those materials being destroyed.
Nutty amounts of Materials are destroyed though.
Quote:- if you offer full access to optimal industry there, you would make large coalitions largely self-sufficient and eliminate another conflict driver. The drive to Jita is not a conflict driver. Having industrial targets floating around in space would be.
As for Self sufficiency, http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=946 "Nullsec Industry 99% Self Sufficient By Volume"
Quote:Simply put, I believe null is far too stable for what it's ment to be, a chaotic "wild west" of EVE You're thinking of WH space, NPC Nullsec, and maybe LS. Sov Nullsec is designed for players to be able to build space Empires. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air Red Alliance
3237
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 07:39:00 -
[512] - Quote
Quote:The majority of isk destruction happens in null - if you offer full access to optimal industry there, you would make large coalitions largely self-sufficient and eliminate another conflict driver. I'm looking to increase this conflict driver by effectively forcing players to travel and secure routes through hostile territory. The current 'conflict driver' of supply-based primary economy is pathetically weak. Don't believe me? Here's a fun experiment: 50% of highsec's total output winds up in null, but you can find more afk autopiloting freighters on any given highsec gate at any given time then died in all of highsec for that day. How much would you say 50% of highsec's collective output is in a day? if it's 'more then 5 freighters', then I got news for you - the current system isn't a 'conflict driver'. Having nullsec produce where it consumes would invite far, far more conflict.
Caitlyn Tufy wrote: Simply put, I believe null is far too stable for what it's ment to be, a chaotic "wild west" of EVE
This intention of nullsec died in 2004, if not sooner. CCP has since moved on to wormholes. |
|
CCP Eterne
C C P C C P Alliance
2207
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 09:41:00 -
[513] - Quote
Removed another bit of trolling from this thread. New Eden Community Representative GÇ+ New Eden Illuminati GÇ+ Fiction Adept
@CCP_Eterne GÇ+ @EVE_LiveEvents |
|
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
274
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 11:14:00 -
[514] - Quote
I have no issue with increased taxes/fees on manufacturing slots. But I think if they're changed, those fees should maybe be relative to npc corp standing like the refine tax.
I do start having issues when people advocate removing abilities (like t2 production - as this is a goal I'm actively working toward) entirely out of high sec or making high sec npc manufacturing slots scarce. Folks are welcome to disagree, but I can't see how increasing competition for available slots is a good thing for new players or smaller corps. The casual gamer would be affected disproportionately. Would those folks really anchor a POS and adapt or just quit playing? Fuel blocks are expensive. Even fueling a small POS costs about 100 mill / month.
Not to mention that someone had better model these changes to see what having 10-30 day waits (like public research slots) on public manufacturing slots would do to high sec industry, the in-game economy, and subscriber numbers. I suspect the answer is nothing good.
Prices are guaranteed to rise on all items if production plummets. And industry would then center around whichever systems still had public slots. With competition for those slots increased exponentially, a player like me would have no choice but to use my research POS for manufacturing.
This would effectively tether my game to my POS location and that's not something I'd be eager to see transpire. The vast majority of my game occurs nowhere near my POS. I didn't achieve standings with 14 npc corps so I would have to stay in the system where I anchored my POS. The ability to be an industrial nomad has been hugely beneficial to my gameplay since I'm able to be effective virtually anywhere. And as player fluidity is conducive to pgc, its not even a great idea for the quality of pgc either. The hits don't even end there. Industrial arrays eat up so much cpu/pwg, I wouldn't even be able to keep my labs online. And there's no way everyone in the game will be able to grind 300 mill isk/ month to power a large pos just to operate labs AND industry simultaneously.
Geez Louise. I can appreciate that there is imbalance in the game. But I cannot accept that expanding null production capability while destroying my game in the process is what's going to fix EVE.
YK "He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day." |
Primary Me
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
24
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 11:31:00 -
[515] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:I have no issue with increased taxes/fees on manufacturing slots. But I think if they're changed, those fees should maybe be relative to npc corp standing like the refine tax.
I do start having issues when people advocate removing abilities (like t2 production - as this is a goal I'm actively working toward) entirely out of high sec or making high sec npc manufacturing slots scarce. Folks are welcome to disagree, but I can't see how increasing competition for available slots is a good thing for new players or smaller corps. The casual gamer would be affected disproportionately. Would those folks really anchor a POS and adapt or just quit playing? Fuel blocks are expensive. Even fueling a small POS costs about 100 mill / month.
Not to mention that someone had better model these changes to see what having 10-30 day waits (like public research slots) on public manufacturing slots would do to high sec industry, the in-game economy, and subscriber numbers. I suspect the answer is nothing good.
Prices are guaranteed to rise on all items if production plummets. And industry would then center around whichever systems still had public slots. With competition for those slots increased exponentially, a player like me would have no choice but to use my research POS for manufacturing.
This would effectively tether my game to my POS location and that's not something I'd be eager to see transpire. The vast majority of my game occurs nowhere near my POS. I didn't achieve standings with 14 npc corps so I would have to stay in the system where I anchored my POS. The ability to be an industrial nomad has been hugely beneficial to my gameplay since I'm able to be effective virtually anywhere. And as player fluidity is conducive to pgc, its not even a great idea for the quality of pgc either. The hits don't even end there. Industrial arrays eat up so much cpu/pwg, I wouldn't even be able to keep my labs online. And there's no way everyone in the game will be able to grind 300 mill isk/ month to power a large pos just to operate labs AND industry simultaneously.
Geez Louise. I can appreciate that there is imbalance in the game. But I cannot accept that expanding null production capability while destroying my game in the process is what's going to fix EVE.
YK Perhaps you could start using all the extra slots in low if all the slots in hi are exhausted. James 315 for CSM 8. A voice for hi-sec, a voice for reason. |
Lin Suizei
101
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 11:49:00 -
[516] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:Prices are guaranteed to rise on all items if production plummets. And industry would then center around whichever systems still had public slots. With competition for those slots increased exponentially, a player like me would have no choice but to use my research POS for manufacturing. ... And there's no way everyone in the game will be able to grind 300 mill isk/ month to power a large pos just to operate labs AND industry simultaneously.
Wouldn't this state of affairs be fantastic? New players might then be incentivized to pool together their resources to buy, maintain and defend a medium or large POS to do highsec research and industry, creating player-generated content that actually involves multiple (actively engaged) players instead of one dude "grinding" pos fuel costs every month so he can continue to play by himself, shielded from non-consensual pewing by CONCORD's skirt! Please do not be a risk-averse coward. |
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
274
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 11:50:00 -
[517] - Quote
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 "He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day." |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7884
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 11:52:00 -
[518] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Malcanis wrote:Caitlyn Tufy wrote:I disagree. One of the core mechanics of EVE economy is trade - trade between various parts of the game. By separating manufacturers, you reduce an important drive to keep trade lanes open and (relatively) safe. OK, let's swap the relative amounts of production in hi-sec and 0.0. We'll do ~95% of production in 0.0, and that production will have to supply hi-sec. Thus preserving the volume of "trade" which you think is the most important factor, right? Right? Nope, not at all. The majority of isk destruction happens in null - if you offer full access to optimal industry there, you would make large coalitions largely self-sufficient and eliminate another conflict driver. I'm looking to increase this conflict driver by effectively forcing players to travel and secure routes through hostile territory. That's why I don't believe all the industry should be placed into null or wormhole space or whatever. It's also why I believe that stationary rewards are a bad idea - by moving them around, you make major players pursue them, bringing them in conflict with other entities in game. Simply put, I believe null is far too stable for what it's ment to be, a chaotic "wild west" of EVE, where players are thrown into the whirlwind while rushing for gold that everyone wants to get their hands on. Meanwhile, high sec is supposed to be "the old world" - a place where you may find steady income, but where competition and high taxes may drive your business down.
Hi-sec is supposed to be the starter area....
I think it's ridiculous to constrain hi-sec under that long outdated assumption, but it's just as ridiculous to constrain 0.0 with the equally outdated "wild west" concept.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7884
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 11:54:00 -
[519] - Quote
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.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Skeln Thargensen
The Scope Gallente Federation
41
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 12:11:00 -
[520] - Quote
no one is forced to manufacture anything, since there is a fully functioning market.
I can understand that it's difficult living in null without facilities close by but should it really be easy? I take back my previous statements and judgements of others. -áyou can mine in iteron if you want. |
|
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
274
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 12:21:00 -
[521] - Quote
Oh, thanks Malcanis, but I've never assumed that (and stated as much.) I was replying to the guy above me but didn't quote his remarks.
You know, this is a complicated, multi-faceted issue with implications that affect everyone. Its not the kind of thing you just poke a stick at to see what happens. I just wanted to point out that some of the suggestions presented would be hugely game-altering. And while someone like me may stick around because I'm devoted to EVE, depending on how severe the changes alter gameplay, the same probably can't be said for all.
I wanted to add too for Lin Suizei that engaging players isn't dependent upon corp membership. There are many definitions of social within the context of EVE. Players who contribute to the forums, chat in player channels, facilitate emergent content, attend player events - in-game and out, and those who duel, are plenty social and none of those things are dependent upon the number of folks in their corp.
YK "He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day." |
Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
137
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 12:54:00 -
[522] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:What's your goal for rebalancing Nullsec industry?
Simple way to put it? Needs to be cheaper to produce in null sec than it is to import goods from high sec and the best methods of production need to have some sort of danger involved. Even if it just means fixing POSs because that way, even if they are in high sec, its not even remotely close to safe if someone wants to stop them. A good method and reason to spread goods throughout null sec is also something that should be looked at. In otherwords, null sec needs to be king for serving null sec with the border reasons having a slight edge at best at serving high sec when competing against other high sec people due to the added dangers involved. That's what I think would be balanced. Not nullsec being balanced around exporting to high sec. You want more industrial targets, gotta give the industrial targets a reason to stay out there more long term anyways. |
Lin Suizei
102
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:17:00 -
[523] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:You want more industrial targets, gotta give the industrial targets a reason to stay out there more long term anyways.
Why would any industralists move to not-highsec under your scheme, if they can just stay in highsec and continue as they were? Please do not be a risk-averse coward. |
Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
138
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:21:00 -
[524] - Quote
Lin Suizei wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:You want more industrial targets, gotta give the industrial targets a reason to stay out there more long term anyways. Why would any industralists move to not-highsec under your scheme, if they can just stay in highsec and continue as they were?
Moving things to POS would make it matter less in the first place as it can be attacked in high sec, but beyond that
1) The best null sec industry profits would be in null sec. 2) It'd be cheaper to run things in null sec, so survival and good logistics would make it more profitable. 3) Alliance industrialists would have a reason to stay out there rather than export goods. |
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
300
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:22:00 -
[525] - Quote
Lin Suizei wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:new players wouldn't have a place in industry everything ends up more expensive while screwing everyone not in those border regions for something that the industry system was never meant to be balanced around. Why should a new player be able to compete in industrial enterprise with players who have invested ISK, time and effort into building well-oiled industrial empires? This is like saying a new miner in a Retriever should be able to compete with a seasoned bot-aspirant with 100+ accounts and Orca boosts - he shouldn't.
A new miner can compete with the multiboxer(bot miners don't exist, don't be silly) because he has no operating costs beyond his time invested, even if he's earning way less per hour, and there's always a demand for more ore. A newbie industrialist would have a much harder time if station slots were reduced or fees increased too much, because he may not be able to make a profit at all. So they'd need some protection to get started. Much like Novice plexes and the frigate buffs helped get newbies into FW pvp. |
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
300
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:26:00 -
[526] - Quote
Skeln Thargensen wrote:no one is forced to manufacture anything, since there is a fully functioning market.
I can understand that it's difficult living in null without facilities close by but should it really be easy?
A market supplied by player manufacturers, lest we forget. From a balance point of view: Nullsec - low overheads, high efficiency, difficult logistics, poor safety Highsec - high overheads, low efficiency, easy logistics, excellent safety makes more sense than giving all the advantages to Highsec as is the case now. |
Takseen
University of Caille Gallente Federation
300
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:29:00 -
[527] - Quote
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
And the award for "I just read the thread title and didn't bother with the rest" goes to... |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7888
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:31:00 -
[528] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:Oh, thanks Malcanis, but I've never assumed that (and stated as much.) I was replying to the guy above me but didn't quote his remarks.
You know, this is a complicated, multi-faceted issue with implications that affect everyone. Its not the kind of thing you just poke a stick at to see what happens. I just wanted to point out that some of the suggestions presented would be hugely game-altering. And while someone like me may stick around because I'm devoted to EVE, depending on how severe the changes alter gameplay, the same probably can't be said for all.
I wanted to add too for Lin Suizei that engaging players isn't dependent upon corp membership. There are many definitions of social within the context of EVE. Players who contribute to the forums, chat in player channels, facilitate emergent content, attend player events - in-game and out, and those who duel, are plenty social and none of those things are dependent upon the number of folks in their corp.
YK
Well I can't answer for other people's bad ideas and posts, but why not focus on the ones that aren't spiteful "wreck hi-sec" jibes.
As you can surely admit, hi-sec production professions receive massive subsidies, and hi-sec and 0.0 production is nowhere near balanced, as evidenced by the fact that virtually all production takes place in hi-sec. Where hi-sec NPC facilities are perfect and effectively free, it's not possible to make null based production competitive unless CCP either charge hi-sec producers realistic fees or directly subsidise 0.0 producers by literally paying them to make/invent/research. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7888
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:34:00 -
[529] - Quote
Skeln Thargensen wrote:no one is forced to manufacture anything, since there is a fully functioning market.
I can understand that it's difficult living in null without facilities close by but should it really be easy?
No one's asking for it to be easy. We're asking for it to be equally viable. We're willing to accept increased risk, difficulty and effort, as long as that's rewarded with sufficient comparitive advantage to make it worthwhile.
You ask if null should be easy: a fair question
You should also ask if hi-sec should be profitable. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7890
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:36:00 -
[530] - Quote
Takseen wrote:Lin Suizei wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:new players wouldn't have a place in industry everything ends up more expensive while screwing everyone not in those border regions for something that the industry system was never meant to be balanced around. Why should a new player be able to compete in industrial enterprise with players who have invested ISK, time and effort into building well-oiled industrial empires? This is like saying a new miner in a Retriever should be able to compete with a seasoned bot-aspirant with 100+ accounts and Orca boosts - he shouldn't. A new miner can compete with the multiboxer(bot miners don't exist, don't be silly) because he has no operating costs beyond his time invested, even if he's earning way less per hour, and there's always a demand for more ore. A newbie industrialist would have a much harder time if station slots were reduced or fees increased too much, because he may not be able to make a profit at all. So they'd need some protection to get started. Much like Novice plexes and the frigate buffs helped get newbies into FW pvp.
On the other hand if the tens of thousands of alts of 0.0 players left hi-sec to produce in 0.0, then massive amounts of hi-sec facilities might be freed up, allowing new players better access, lower office rentals, etc. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
490
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:51:00 -
[531] - 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 |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4069
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:52:00 -
[532] - Quote
Skeln Thargensen wrote:no one is forced to manufacture anything, since there is a fully functioning market.
I can understand that it's difficult living in null without facilities close by but should it really be easy? Uh, you've got it backwards, the point is that it's actually too easy. There's very little to no conflict being driven by having large nullsec alliances produce everything in highsec and ship it down. It's not as if having stuff sent from highsec into deep null is particularly risky for us. Having our industrialists actually live and produce in null would be very lucrative but it would also be a major conflict driver because the facilities would be vulnerable, either to destruction or to being conquered. Think of the major battles you may have heard of being fought over defending/attacking an alliance's CSAA. Now multiply that by ten for the amount of conflict you gain from adding more significant industrial capacity. Now there's more incentive for alliances to actually use and defend the space they live in. Malcanis for CSM 8 Phrases like "you can't nerf / buff X EVE is a Sandbox" have the same amount of meaning as "If this is a sack of potatoes then you can not carrot." - Alara IonStorm |
Kinis Deren
EVE University Ivy League
153
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:57:00 -
[533] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Skeln Thargensen wrote:no one is forced to manufacture anything, since there is a fully functioning market.
I can understand that it's difficult living in null without facilities close by but should it really be easy? No one's asking for it to be easy. We're asking for it to be equally viable. We're willing to accept increased risk, difficulty and effort, as long as that's rewarded with sufficient comparitive advantage to make it worthwhile. You ask if null should be easy: a fair question You should also ask if hi-sec should be profitable.
I think the latter question is inappropriately phrased as this might suggest you are in favour of high sec being profit neutral or negative for any industry related activity. Rephrasing to "Should null sec industry be more profitable than hi sec industry?" would, I imagine, produce an affirmative answer from most right minded players.
|
Skeln Thargensen
The Scope Gallente Federation
41
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 14:04:00 -
[534] - Quote
Takseen wrote:A market supplied by player manufacturers, lest we forget. From a balance point of view: Nullsec - low overheads, high efficiency, difficult logistics, poor safety Highsec - high overheads, low efficiency, easy logistics, excellent safety makes more sense than giving all the advantages to Highsec as is the case now.
you assume logistics in null are going to be more difficult but it's easier than manufacturing in high and shipping down to null.
but that's the point, it's not about balance, since the risk of manufacturing is identical in any sec status station and logistics risk is measured by hostile space to be covered. it's about whether nullsec would benefit from being self-sufficient in a positive way for the game. if it's just a case of tedious alt juggling and jump freighter chains then maybe so or maybe the state of affairs that led to that being possible was just bad game design.
I don't think homogenising the different areas of the game is in any way a good idea though, if anything all profitable PvE should be shunted out of high instead and leave high exclusively for industry and trade, and training. I take back my previous statements and judgements of others. -áyou can mine in iteron if you want. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
584
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 14:05:00 -
[535] - Quote
Haters are going to hate .. but whatever ..
Hisec is mostly fine as it is. Losec is mostly fine as it is. Some parts of Nulsec need to be nerfed. Some parts of nulsec need to be buffed. Reprocessing ratios need to be altered accross the board.
Item drops from NPC's has already been reviewed once, and basic T1 modules were removed from the tables, and this was a good change as it made T1 production more relavent. However there are still vast quantities of minerals produced from the reprocessing of 'Meta' items that are found in mission/belt drops.
Reprocessing If a player cannot build it from a bpo/bpc, remove the [reprocess] option from it. If you need a "Lore Rational" for the change, then the easiest is :- It was produced by a nonstadard process using materials that the reprocessing facility cannot identify. This will make minerals sourced from mining more important, especially lo & nul. It will create a reason to mine there. It will create a reason to have trade between Nul & Hisec.
Nulsec Nerf Alliances/Naps are to easy to form, to cheap to maintain and reduce the level of competitive play in nulsec. Right now it is too easy for an Alliance to have a 1-5 man [Sov Holding] or [PoS Holding] Corp, and the alliance suffers no ill effects from this arrangement. Make them skill based, make it cost a resonable amount of ISK to maintain.
Add 1-2 Skills that limit the number of corporations in an alliance :- This would mean Alliance leaders would have to choose between incorporating PoS/SOV holding into thier main structure, to allow for more robust 50+man combat/industry biased corps. Or they reduce thier overall effectiveness by using current holding corp mechanisms.
Add 1-2 skills that limit the maximum number of Positive Standings that can be set :- This has the potential to increase the amount of conflict, so no-one has ANY reason to complain about that. Alliance/Corp leaders would have to be more choosy about who they set 'Blue'
Nulsec Buff As it stands, nulsec cannot compete with hisec on an industrial basis. It does not have the ability to adequately match the manufacturing, research or Invention potential of any hisec system. Nulsec is restricted to 1 Outpost per system. This restriction needs to go. Removing this restriction would allow nulsec to more reasonable approach hisecs capability for industry This approach matches the original intent of nulsec "a place where the players can create a capsuleer empire" |
Skeln Thargensen
The Scope Gallente Federation
41
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 14:07:00 -
[536] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Skeln Thargensen wrote:no one is forced to manufacture anything, since there is a fully functioning market.
I can understand that it's difficult living in null without facilities close by but should it really be easy? No one's asking for it to be easy. We're asking for it to be equally viable. We're willing to accept increased risk, difficulty and effort, as long as that's rewarded with sufficient comparitive advantage to make it worthwhile. You ask if null should be easy: a fair question You should also ask if hi-sec should be profitable.
it depends what for. Trade and Industry, yeah. PvE, not so much. I take back my previous statements and judgements of others. -áyou can mine in iteron if you want. |
Skeln Thargensen
The Scope Gallente Federation
41
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 14:17:00 -
[537] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Skeln Thargensen wrote:no one is forced to manufacture anything, since there is a fully functioning market.
I can understand that it's difficult living in null without facilities close by but should it really be easy? Uh, you've got it backwards, the point is that it's actually too easy. There's very little to no conflict being driven by having large nullsec alliances produce everything in highsec and ship it down. It's not as if having stuff sent from highsec into deep null is particularly risky for us. Having our industrialists actually live and produce in null would be very lucrative but it would also be a major conflict driver because the facilities would be vulnerable, either to destruction or to being conquered. Think of the major battles you may have heard of being fought over defending/attacking an alliance's CSAA. Now multiply that by ten for the amount of conflict you gain from adding more significant industrial capacity. Now there's more incentive for alliances to actually use and defend the space they live in.
alright, that makes sense. does that encourage larger alliances though? could that lead to a monopoly, even? I take back my previous statements and judgements of others. -áyou can mine in iteron if you want. |
monkfish2345
Perkone Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 14:18:00 -
[538] - Quote
As much as it is easy to look at this as null is broken, high sec is fine. consider things from a enconomic view.
currently high sec earning is high with little to no risk.
so to 'fix null' earning would need to be extremely high with higher risk.....
all this really achieves is to add more inflation to the market. currently players are richer than ever and that inflation is continuing because there are not enough ISK sinks to counteract ways to earn.
the argument is essentially the same from either angle, but by reducing income in High and slightly increasing it in null. you will at least stop the markets going completely insane.
Honestly i'd like to see everyone with less isk. Then losing ships etc would go back to being a big deal. rather than "oh well we welped our 100 man dread fleet, we'll have to field 500 next time".
|
Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
138
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 15:27:00 -
[539] - Quote
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. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4071
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 15:29:00 -
[540] - 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. All you'll end up doing by making capital ships and jump freighters more resource and fuel intensive is setting the bar even higher for what it takes to establish and maintain yourself in nullsec. Large alliances won't have a problem compensating. Smaller alliances will choke and die. Malcanis for CSM 8 Phrases like "you can't nerf / buff X EVE is a Sandbox" have the same amount of meaning as "If this is a sack of potatoes then you can not carrot." - Alara IonStorm |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 30 .. 31 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |