| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
455
   |
Posted - 2013.04.29 22:22:00 -
[1] - Quote
Liz Laser wrote:Tippia wrote:Liz Laser wrote:I just hope these changes make null more fun. But you'll never get me to say that industry was unbalanced in high-sec's favor.
The notion is simply laughable. So you're basically saying that you have decided to ignore facts and figures and that no amount of data or people (or even devs) telling you what's going on in the game will persuade you to abandon something you have made up, and which you will not make any effort to actually see if it's true? The question posed earlier is quite interesting and I'd like to hear you actually answer it: please describe the nature of this "industrial balance" as you understand it. Quote:I'm not going to play mathematician for you. It's not a matter of playing mathematician GÇö it's about checking your facts before you make any claims, and certainly before you dismiss the claims of those who have checked their facts and done the maths. The only conceivable reason for saying that an imbalance in highsec's favour is laughable is that you simply haven't bothered to look and are just going by baseless assumptions that you refuse to accept as anything but true. I've lived in null-sec. I've had the moon-goo riches showered on me by benevolent dictators that I one day hope to have the time to play with, again. A couple of my corps handed out Carriers like they were candy to anyone who'd train them. If CCP's economist wants to show us numbers on industrial wealth extracted per industrialist (with some definition of what constitutes an industrialist) I'd be very interested in seeing those numbers. But if it proves me wrong I'm going to suffer some very serious cognitive dissonance, because it will basically be telling me that what I saw in null-sec didn't really happen. Sure, I'm open to seeing the math. But if it shows me I'm wrong it will be like telling a lumberjack that there are no such things as trees. I will have some serious cognitive dissonance, because it doesn't merely disagree with my beliefs, but with my actual experience. The only logical explanation would be that somehow my experiences weren't representative. While in fact, I currently hold the (admittedly unproveable) impression that there were/are other corps that have even greater and more concentrated moon-goo wealth than those I served in.
The only thing your example really shows is that nullsec has some really good basic resource extraction (moon goo), and that it is enough to subsidize some niche value adding industry (building and handing out carriers). It in no way demonstrates that nullsec has viable industry on its own.
|
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
455
|
Posted - 2013.04.29 22:37:00 -
[2] - Quote
Liz Laser wrote:
This was in regards to if there is BALANCE and who holds the cards in industrial imbalance. If someone were to argue that every area should be able to be self sufficient because that's more fun, then fine. If they argue that null should get more self sufficiency (or that null should get anything) to create industrial balance that's what seems funny, to me.
Why is that funny? Especially when your own experience shows you that the only big nullsec industry had to be subsidized by moon goo. Also keep in mind, most space isn't rolling in high value moons, so this moon goo subsidized industry only works for a few alliances holding a bunch of the best moons. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
455
|
Posted - 2013.04.29 23:08:00 -
[3] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Should it matter? Either the tech moons are profitable or not. If they aren't then somone should fire the alliance's accountant.
Again, tech moons are only held in large numbers by a handful of alliances in the north.
No one in the south or east is making isk hand over fist with tech moons. It is stupid to keep bringing up tech moons in a discussion about all of nullsec when only a minority of nullsec holds tech moons, and CCP is actively trying to break the abuse of tech moons any way. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
455
|
Posted - 2013.04.29 23:20:00 -
[4] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
Should it matter if it should matter? Either the statement is true, or it is not. If it is true, then null alliances should (have) shut their tech moons down (years ago) .
I don't see how it could be true. 500 is, iirc, the max number of tech moons out there. 250k man hours for 500 tech moons = 500 hours per month per moon. So that statement would imply that fueling and stocking tech moons takes 17 hours a day, for each moon. That doesn't sound likely.
They require 24/7 security in the form of fleets of hundreds of ships.
Yah, calling up a 200 player fleet to go deal with timers for a few hours each month is pretty standard as far as nullsec warfare goes.
Even something like OTEC only applies to OTEC members not taking each other moons. It has no real effect on upstarts sniping at OTEC or other moons. This stuff happen all the time. The Asakai incident was over a moon mining POS.
So aside from the basic POS maintainance that goes on, we do deploy (and reimburse) fleets that deal with moon taking and defending fairly often. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
455
|
Posted - 2013.04.29 23:33:00 -
[5] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Yah, calling up a 200 player fleet to go deal with timers for a few hours each month is pretty standard as far as nullsec warfare goes.
Even something like OTEC only applies to OTEC members not taking each other moons. It has no real effect on upstarts sniping at OTEC or other moons. This stuff happen all the time. The Asakai incident was over a moon mining POS.
So aside from the basic POS maintainance that goes on, we do deploy (and reimburse) fleets that deal with moon taking and defending fairly often.
I'm confused. If moon goo is worthless why lose billions worth of ships just to defend them. I have never seen an ice miner war on the same proportion. Although that would be interesting to see.
Like others pointed out, moon goo isn't worthless.
Some moons are worth more than other though. Some are worth sending out huge fleets to take or defend.
And you don't see this with ice because ice belts in their current form are effectively limitless and the vast majority of the harvesting is done in highsec where warring over it is complicated. But is does happen (see; Gallente Ice Interdiction) |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
456
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 05:16:00 -
[6] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:Varius Xeral wrote:"Comparative advantage" is improperly applied. Furthermore, the relative "economic profit" (look it up) of ice mining versus moonmining isn't in question. Nobody is complaining that moons should have more value to account for the hours spent. I'm sorry. It is just that what people get from these threads is that people in Null claim moon mining isn't as valuable as other people make it out to be. If you are saying they are valuable and worth the effort, then I'll accept that answer.
First off, not all moons are valuable. Some moon goo is worth just enough to pay for the fuel of the POS that mines it.
Secondly, value is relative. 5bil a month sounds awesome to a single player. To a small group of players, it will keep them all fairly comfortable. To sov holding nullsec alliance, it is a drop in the bucket and you would need a dozen of those moons to just dump into the isk sink of sov bills. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
456
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 18:29:00 -
[7] - Quote
Why the hell are people still going on about moons?
5bil/month moons are pretty much limited to OTEC (mostly CFC and PL). And CCP has hit that with the nerf bat and is winding up to hit it again. And when TEST tried to do a similar cartel with the next best moon, it failed.
In short...
SHUT UP ABOUT THE MOONS
This whole "but nullsec has moons" is such a dishonest argument. NPC nullsec and lowsec also have moons. A lot of moons are crap. Only a handful of nullsec alliances can count on nationalized moons as major source of income. Most moons aren't regional enough for any alliance or even group of alliances to effectively throttle to get maximum isk.
The rest of nullsec is dealing with ratting and refining taxes, rent and straight up membership fees to pay for the costs of nullsec life. And this "but the moons" completely ignores that. Not everyone can dip into a tech moon to buy and JF in bullets from Jita. So quit building your arguments around that, because it is at least 80% wrong. Or as I said before...
SHUT UP ABOUT THE MOONS |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
456
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 19:02:00 -
[8] - Quote
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:Why the hell are people still going on about moons?
While all of your latter arguments seem to have merit, the simple answer to your question: "Why the hell are people still going on about moons?", is because of certain statements made loudly and repeatedly by members of your alliance about how much ISK tech made them, over a period of years. Those statements, stated in a loud and direct manner, are much easier to understand than a bunch of math formulas about changes that have yet to be made; and so a certain set of people is still basing their statements on them. Glad I could help alleviate your confusion.
But it is only my alliance and not all of nullsec.
This industry changes are for all of nullsec, so it is dishonest or just plain ignorant to try and argue that Providence and Detroid and Cobalt Edge don't deserve a few more factory slots and a bit more trit in their mining sites because the CFC managed to monopolize a specific moon. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
458
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 06:51:00 -
[9] - Quote
Liz Laser wrote:
If we make null-sec industry so that null sec players have a "vibrant local economy" (in EvilWeasel's words), what will be the conflict driver?
Hopefully it would be enemy alliances messing with your players and their industry. Right now we have moons as a centralized resource to fight over, and the egos of CEOs. And you see a lot of other nullsec residents complaining that there is little for them to do outside structure grinds, to take moons or to take sov from some one who insulted your CEO.
A lot of players want small gang and guerrilla war objectives. But structure grinding is too big and boring a task, and there is nothing else really going on in nullsec but ratting. The alliances more or less see ratting as private income generation that they prefer not to have drama over, and since you can shoot red crosses for about the same amount of isk in any where in the game, alliances aren't going to expend much resources to deal with enemies killing ratters.
But when highsec can't produce 100% of the game's ice needs, people will mine in nullsec, and messing with them means messing with the alliance's fuel supply for pos and caps. If the alliance starts to get several battleships of trit out of mining sites, they might actually care if enemies keep disrupting it. Either way, more people hauling ice and trit around, products from the buffed factory station, means more targets for roaming gangs. And rather than targets that are just out for personal income it will mean targets that have some strategic importance. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
463
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 18:01:00 -
[10] - Quote
Liz Laser wrote:You make it sound tasty.
I previously have preferred structure shoots over roams because roams so often yield zero fights, whereas with a structure you can at least punish cowardice.
I imagine in Odyssey that miners will still be as cowardly as ratters, but if we roam often enough,or loiter long enough, then yeah I can picture the other side fleeting up if they need their precious ice.
Or will ice camping will be the new gate camping?
edit: If it becomes an obligation, it would probably just result in a shift of where gate campers camp.
I don't blame you for dreading roams given the current system of mostly empty nullsec with a few very skittish ratters. And they aren't changing structure shots, so those are still an option.
Right now though, there are very few miners to shoot because mining in nullsec is limited to cherry picking and exporting a few highends. There are not many people trucking around industrial goods because few people are extracting a broad group of raw materials, the factory slots are too few to build much, and rock bottom ice prices from near-infinite highsec ice belts make JF importing far more attractive. There aren't even a whole lot of ratters because L4 missions, Incursion and Faction Warfare pay about as much and can be done in empire space where logistics are just so much easier. It also tends to be done on alts so that your nullsec enemies can't even come after that personal income source.
I'm hoping these changes mean more people mining in nullsec, both ore and ice. Ice is obvious because ccp has stated a goal of limiting highsec extraction to less than total demand. And I'm expecting ore mining to increase as more factory slots and the increase in JF costs make local production more lucrative.
And will all of you please just drop the whole moon mining debate. Who cares how many man hours it takes to defend. The point of the comparison to ice mining wasn't about whether you could mine ice while repping a tower, but to put into perspective the real income of a tech moon. Tech moons that are only held by a few groups and had to be manipulated by clever players to be worth such high prices.
It completely ignores how much the rest of nullsec is so crappy that there are effectively no in-game conflict drivers in most of nullsec. Look at all the recent wars (because the blue donut is a myth) and the vast majority are over the meta-game. Boredom, personal insults and old grudges, people who got kicked out of their space taking some new space based on what is easiest to take. |
| |
|