There was a time and place when industry thrived in null-sec. That place saw many many more outposts built than other places.

Sigh. I facepalmed so hard it hurt. Come on OP, don't drag us thru this again.

It really is the case. A quick search would have told you that.

post with your main

how does nrds or nbsi change what ores are in null sec grav sites?

can you tell me how we managed to reduce the number of slots in all of nullsec to a miniscule fraction of hisec's capacity through sandbox magic

because well you can't sandbox your way around hard mechanics limitations

how does nrds or nbsi change what ores are in null sec grav sites?

Nullsec industrial alliances were killed off by the addition of invention and the resulting price rises in prom/dyspro (and later tech). We're hoping that the moon rebalance in Odyssey starts to wind that back a bit, but it's not the whole solution.

Could you please elaborate on that? I don't realize the link between the two things. I mean, why an increase in moon minerals price would stop nullsec industrialists?

Instead I would say (perhaps naively) that the ease of logistics (jump freighters and stuff) killed nullsec industry, since it's far easier to produce in highsec (where lowend ores coming from afk mining are abundant) and move stuff in 0.0 with those overpowered mega caravans than it is to produce locally, with the chronic lack of lowend ores.

[...]

What this meant was that there was no point being an industrial alliance - PvP alliances had better income by miles and could buy everything they wanted from their newfound moongold.

[...]

I'm not convinced the changes will fix this problem, without some heavy nerfs to logistics to encourage localisation

Prior to that point, Alliance income was multi-faceted, with collectively owned t2 BPOs and 0.0 ratting/mining (e.g. corp and refinery taxes) at its core. Since most t2 production was used internally to the alliance, it made sense do so at least some of the production in 0.0. Ratting and mining also meant a large portion of the low end (from refined loot) and high end (from mining) minerals were already in place.

After those changes not only did t2 become WAY cheaper (BPOs less profitable, internal (subsidised) alliance production less necessary), but Alliance income became largely relient on holding R64 and later Tech moons, something that industrial players were not capable of beyond the obligitory POS logistics teams (usually less than 20 people for a many thousand person alliance). At the same time, better logistics through cyno-networks, JFs, proliferation of carriers etc made moving large amounts of ships and material from Empire into 0.0 more and more feasible.

What this meant was that there was no point being an industrial alliance - PvP alliances had better income by miles and could buy everything they wanted from their newfound moongold.


I'm not convinced the changes will fix this problem, without some heavy nerfs to logistics to encourage localisation, but they certainly are a GREAT step in the right direction. I trust CCP to follow up on this.

Yup, pretty much this. It used to be that you could be strong but poor (PvP alliance) or weak but rich (industrial alliance), because making lots of money and being militarily strong required fundamentally different internal cultures/structures, and every alliance had to decide where it wanted to fall on that spectrum. With the advent of supermoons, being strong and being rich fed into each other, and suddenly there was no upside to being an industrial alliance.

(This is my go-to example for unintended consequences in emergent design.)

Yup, pretty much this. It used to be that you could be strong but poor (PvP alliance) or weak but rich (industrial alliance), because making lots of money and being militarily strong required fundamentally different internal cultures/structures, and every alliance had to decide where it wanted to fall on that spectrum. With the advent of supermoons, being strong and being rich fed into each other, and suddenly there was no upside to being an industrial alliance.

(This is my go-to example for unintended consequences in emergent design.)

This is around the 5th argument from ignorance you've gone through in as many hours.

Perhaps you should just step back and realize you have no clue what you're talking about.

Right, and how do reasonable people learn things? Do they walk into a room and blurt out moronic statements until people are forced to correct them?

If null-sec industrialism is broken, it might not be CCP's fault

What if we killed all illegal immigrants? Would that make our country better?

I'm interested in people's opinions here. Just trying to have a conversation, you know?

Right, and how do reasonable people learn things? Do they walk into a room and blurt out moronic statements until people are forced to correct them?

I do like the way the CCP guy came in and totally proved the OPs assertion wrong without seeming to do so .

Null industry suffered unintended consequences due to the gamer maker's well intention changes, NOT because null sec players are so mean to everyone and shoot people (in a video game about space ships with guns) for no reason at all.

High Sec and NRDS player prejudice #23917523, Debunked.

It's not our fault. A proper industrialist is looking for the highest possible income with lowest possible expenditure (including time, effort, calculated risk, logistical diffculties and market demands) to maximize his profit. There is just no sane reason to bring out the business from highsec. If there would be more ways to find an edge on the market or in the process of manufacturing I bet most serious industrialists would bring out their business and looking for deals with low/null entities if they don't have already one. But there isn't.

If CCP want to buff low/null industry without nerfing highsec to the ground they have to add new ways, features, new levels to the low/null industry without touching the highsec industry. I hope with the theme "space colonization" they want to work towards a similar goal.

What if we killed all illegal immigrants? Would that make our country better?

I'm interested in people's opinions here. Just trying to have a conversation, you know?

Nullsec industrial alliances were killed off by the addition of invention and the resulting price rises in prom/dyspro (and later tech). We're hoping that the moon rebalance in Odyssey starts to wind that back a bit, but it's not the whole solution.

Prior to that point, Alliance income was multi-faceted, with collectively owned t2 BPOs and 0.0 ratting/mining (e.g. corp and refinery taxes) at its core. Since most t2 production was used internally to the alliance, it made sense do so at least some of the production in 0.0. Ratting and mining also meant a large portion of the low end (from refined loot) and high end (from mining) minerals were already in place.

After those changes not only did t2 become WAY cheaper (BPOs less profitable, internal (subsidised) alliance production less necessary), but Alliance income became largely relient on holding R64 and later Tech moons, something that industrial players were not capable of beyond the obligitory POS logistics teams (usually less than 20 people for a many thousand person alliance). At the same time, better logistics through cyno-networks, JFs, proliferation of carriers etc made moving large amounts of ships and material from Empire into 0.0 more and more feasible.

What this meant was that there was no point being an industrial alliance - PvP alliances had better income by miles and could buy everything they wanted from their newfound moongold.


I'm not convinced the changes will fix this problem, without some heavy nerfs to logistics to encourage localisation, but they certainly are a GREAT step in the right direction. I trust CCP to follow up on this.

Confirming everything is always CCPs fault.

Also confirming everyone should become NRDS and join the Provi-Bloc Coalition.

The problem with null industry is that it's currently almost impossible to source low-end minerals locally at a decent price in any reasonable quantity unless you invest substantial resources into growing your own mining corporation. Because of the way mineral markets work, in most situations a miner can make just as much mining in high-sec as in null after accounting for the all the hassles mining in null involves. So there's no point in mining in null as a way of making ISK, when you can make a similar amount in high-sec for less effort and without having to listen to alliance command cry about mining alts during ops.

And even if you grow that fleet, current hidden belts are so skewed towards high-ends that fully mining out certain grav sites won't produce enough tritanium for a single Rokh, so an industrialist would have to import low-end minerals anyway. At that point, most folk throw up their hands and choose to produce in high-sec, because it takes substantially less effort.

Thankfully, Odyssey will fix that by substantially increasing null low-end supply and ISK output.

Arguably, making bulk logistics more difficult would encourage null industry by separating null and high-sec markets, and forcing null to produce ships and such locally. But that would still require a decent local source of low-ends, which is coming with Odyssey.

Structurally, the current game mechanics disincentivize null industry, outside of certain specific circumstances. This has been the case for years, and I wrote as much when eliminating drone alloys was seriously proposed. Once the mineral supply is sufficient to sustain industrial activity, it may make a lot of sense to nerf module-based mineral compression into the ground, and maybe to also increase the volume of ships across the board to make importing them more difficult.

Moons have nothing to do with it. Ditto outpost build slots. Moons are a problem, in part because they're a mostly-passive source of income that requires substantial resources to take and control, but once controlled can be a fountain of ISK that pays for maintaining control. War is expensive, after all. Although moons also provide objectives to fight over, so they're not all bad.

All that said, I do agree broadly with CCP Greyscale, in that moons are not healthy for the game, and it would be nice if alliances were to rely more on PvE activity for funding things like ship replacement and such.

Yup, pretty much this. It used to be that you could be strong but poor (PvP alliance) or weak but rich (industrial alliance), because making lots of money and being militarily strong required fundamentally different internal cultures/structures, and every alliance had to decide where it wanted to fall on that spectrum. With the advent of supermoons, being strong and being rich fed into each other, and suddenly there was no upside to being an industrial alliance.

(This is my go-to example for unintended consequences in emergent design.)

it's too dangerous

Yup, pretty much this. It used to be that you could be strong but poor (PvP alliance) or weak but rich (industrial alliance), because making lots of money and being militarily strong required fundamentally different internal cultures/structures, and every alliance had to decide where it wanted to fall on that spectrum. With the advent of supermoons, being strong and being rich fed into each other, and suddenly there was no upside to being an industrial alliance.

(This is my go-to example for unintended consequences in emergent design.)

I really can't begin to describe how wrong this is. What you are describing is alliances being rich because they owned t2 bpos, which is not the same as the alliance being rich because it is an industrial alliance. It means that alliances were rich because they were, essentially, lucky.

It was never possible to take a t2 bpo away from an industrial alliance or make it stop spigoting money for them (because they could build it in highsec). No alliance could "decide to be" an industrial alliance because they couldn't decide to have a t2 bpo (unless, of course, they were BoB). "Industrial alliances" did not earn money off the backs of their industrial members: they earned money by having a t2 bpo and having one or two people run it. It didn't mean people needed to mine, it didn't mean people needed to build, it just meant "this alliance has lots of money because it has a t2 bpo".

An alliance having a t2 money spigot didn't mean it was weak or strong; it was entirely irrelevant (hence Bob, the prototypical elitePvP alliance also being stupid wealthy).

This is really, really wrong on a fundamental level and I really hope this isn't the basis of game design post-oddessy. It's just such a botched view of what an industrial alliance even is and what eve's history is.

This is really, really wrong on a fundamental level and I really hope this isn't the basis of game design post-oddessy. It's just such a botched view of what an industrial alliance even is and what eve's history is.

I really can't begin to describe how wrong this is. What you are describing is alliances being rich because they owned t2 bpos, which is not the same as the alliance being rich because it is an industrial alliance. It means that alliances were rich because they were, essentially, lucky.

It was never possible to take a t2 bpo away from an industrial alliance or make it stop spigoting money for them (because they could build it in highsec). No alliance could "decide to be" an industrial alliance because they couldn't decide to have a t2 bpo (unless, of course, they were BoB). "Industrial alliances" did not earn money off the backs of their industrial members: they earned money by having a t2 bpo and having one or two people run it. It didn't mean people needed to mine, it didn't mean people needed to build, it just meant "this alliance has lots of money because it has a t2 bpo".

An alliance having a t2 money spigot didn't mean it was weak or strong; it was entirely irrelevant (hence Bob, the prototypical elitePvP alliance also being stupid wealthy).

This is really, really wrong on a fundamental level and I really hope this isn't the basis of game design post-oddessy. It's just such a botched view of what an industrial alliance even is and what eve's history is.

Industrial alliances may have died because they couldn't defend themselves, but they weren't replaced by hybridized alliances because over the years it's become easier to import everything rather than building any of it locally.

The ore and outpost changes are a good step towards addressing that.

e: Everything EvilweaselSA wrote two pages down is correct as well, though I'm not sure if you were agreeing on Lallente's point regarding T2 BPOs being "alliance income" or just the idea of invention giving rise to supermoons.

Sorry, wrong. There were many region-holding "industrial" alliances including XETIC Federation, Coalition of Free Stars, Fountain Alliance and later Ascendant Frontier. None of them were rich "because" they owned t2 BPOs, they mostly owned t2 BPOs BECAUSE they were rich from mining 6000isk/unit Megacyte and 4000 isk/unit Zydrine in huge corp or alliance wide mining ops and refinery taxes. Industry also drove the various "open to all" 0.0 player owned stations that have existed from time to time.

All of them were known to hire mercenaries for protection, indeed mercenary work was far more common, again due to the "PVP alliance = poor" paradigm.

Yes there were hybrids and exceptions (like BoB) but that hardly defeats the point, in fact in many ways it reinforces it. BoB had vassal industrial alliances that did their building for them.

I hope people don't think these moon and industry changes will ever mean a place for the mythical "little guy" (whatever individual pastiche of fantasy this means to you) in nullsec.

The moon change is ultimately a tweak on an existing system for organizational incentives and the indy changes an extremely minor sop for people who actually want to do "stuff" in nullsec.

None of these represent any movement towards a fundamental change in how organizations and power functions in nullsec.

Really it's this simple

It costs X to make $stuff in hi-sec

It costs Y to make $stuff in sov 0.0

It costs M to move $stuff from hi-sec to 0.0

(Where "cost" is the sum of mineral cost, production cost, transport cost and opportunity cost to make a given quantity of whatever item)

As long as X + M is less than or equal to Y for any given product, no one is ever going to build those things in 0.0 unless for RP reasons or a straight up game rule disctating that they can't build anywhere else. All the extra slots in the world can't change this. M is pretty low because jump freighters, rorquals, etc, can move a cubic metre fairly cheaply, and they're fairly common. Any industry balance has to assume that the sum cost of moving goods between hi and 0.0 is very low.

At the moment, hi-sec gets 3 massive "cost" advantages

1) A huge amount of free invulnerable, inalienable slots, often in the same station as you can easily get perfect refines, loads of office slots, research slots etc., etc.

2) CONCORD protection 24/7 at zero cost, which hugely reduces the overhead of moving finished products and materials.

3) A massive local supply of low-end minerals; it's much cheaper, logistically speaking, to move the high ends to where the low ends are than vice versa.

Now the Odessey ore changes will go some way to redressing cost 3, but hi-sec cost advantages 1 & 2 are left largely intact.

Until such time as either 0.0 stations get an efficiency advantage equivalent to those cost advantages, or else hi-sec stations charge "realistic" amounts for the use of their slots, very little industry will take place in 0.0; ammo, cap boosters, cyno frigates, etc.

Personally, I'd also remove jump drives from jump freighters or

And for another thing, yes, it is a movement towards a fundamental change, because from an incremental perspective, you need to get the supply/demand balance tweaked to where it actually should be so you can be sure it settles out to the price balance you want, before you go and just fundamentally change the whole supply side.

That's nonsense. Those were broken by the drone regions making mining worthless, not "oh look a side effect of invention". The utter collapse of the highend minerals that made 0.0 mining a joke half a decade ago is the problem there, and the drone regions didn't create this unstoppable pvp juggernaut. They are also not industrial alliances, they're nothing more than today's spacelords renting to ratting bots instead of mining bots. Endless supplies of mega and zyd do not create local industry, they just created local resource harvesting. Today, that's ratting instead of mining, mostly, thanks to years of minerals being completely borked.

The "open to all" player owned stations were largely the result of people trying to force an ideology into a game that doesn't support it (the laughable collapse of the goonswarm libertarian free-trade-zone for example) and getting crushed because it turns out it just doesn't work as a paradigm in this game.

Much of the difference between early eve and current eve is also not fundamental mechanics changes but just the process of learning how to play the 0.0 sov game, the increasing number of people in 0.0, and the vicious evolutionary process winnowing out bad forms of alliances.

With t2 bpos, the "can be rich and powerful" still existed, it was just you had to be lucky enough to have some t2 bpos. Then, not only did you have an endless isk spigot but you had one that could never be taken away from you. That was going to create the same crowding out, just in a different way.

the "end importation and mineral compression" is an obviously nonsense idea, though it keeps coming up.

Here's the thing: most mineral loss occurs in 0.0. Most lowend minerals are mined in highsec. Somehow, either those minerals, or the finished products, have to make their way to 0.0. Or you just nerf highsec into the ******* ground and make it supply only itself with lowends (we will assume this isn't an option for now). It's one or the other, either the finished products or the raw materials come out. So when you advocate killing mineral compression you're advocating we retain the "import all finished products from jita, death to 0.0 industry" paradigm. Because that's the only option, no matter how high you jack up the import cost, short of the massive nerf into the ground of highsec veld mining.

the "end importation and mineral compression" is an obviously nonsense idea, though it keeps coming up.

Here's the thing: most mineral loss occurs in 0.0. Most lowend minerals are mined in highsec. Somehow, either those minerals, or the finished products, have to make their way to 0.0. Or you just nerf highsec into the ******* ground and make it supply only itself with lowends (we will assume this isn't an option for now). It's one or the other, either the finished products or the raw materials come out. So when you advocate killing mineral compression you're advocating we retain the "import all finished products from jita, death to 0.0 industry" paradigm. Because that's the only option, no matter how high you jack up the import cost, short of the massive nerf into the ground of highsec veld mining.

That's why you should nerf importation of finished products (you can't nerf it completely because we still gotta import tons of ice highsec mines even under the 80% max plan, and export tons of moon mats) and buff the everliving **** out of mineral compression, not continue to believe that 0.0 should be mining its own lowends

or i mean let us do that in a reasonable way, I am all in favor of nerfing highsec into the ground but ending even their ability to mine for scraps is a little vicious even for me.

I say nonsense. My first time around eve about 3 years ago I was ice mining in providence with a mackinaw on my first account and was never really in danger with the intel you had about those that moved in and out of your area.

Evidently you haven't done the maths on the ore changes. 0.0 being wholly self-sufficient is now a very real possibility (at least as far as t1 production goes). The yields on 0.0 exploration mining sites are now pretty much proportional to the demand for minerals in t1 production.

I am fine with 0.0 being self-sufficent but I am very aware ccp is not fine with nerfing highsec into the ground by ending demand for their lowend minerals. Consequently, I operate on the assumption that empire must export finished goods, or their lowends. To the extent you nerf mineral compression you just make it more likely that we start importing finished goods instead.

I don't really understand what I've said that you disagree with here.

The Industrial alliances had mostly died before the drone regions were even introduced in the Revelations expansion in winter 2006. You seem to be conflating 2003-2006 whereas the industrial alliances' hayday was a 2 year period from late 2003/early 2004 (XETIC, FA, CFS) to late 2006 (ASCN). All of them were dead by the time the drone regions came online. The drone regions may have killed mining, but it cant be said to have killed 0.0 industrial alliances.

Please explain how your argument against nerfing mineral compression applies following the ore changes in null.

Evidently you haven't done the maths on the ore changes. 0.0 being wholly self-sufficient is now a very real possibility (at least as far as t1 production goes). The yields on 0.0 exploration mining sites are now pretty much proportional to the demand for minerals in t1 production.

even under the assumption 0.0 becomes self sufficient, it'll always overproduce high end minerals. it has to.

Personally, I'd also remove jump drives from jump freighters or at the very least ban them from empire. **** those things tbh.

I mean that's fine (they don't need to be compressed) but then mining in empire becomes so unprofitable ccp is forced to take action.

Does anyone else struggle to follow exactly what it is he is trying to say?

If you cut 0.0's ability to import trit/pyer, then hi-sec loses it's main market. Thus the cost of trit/pyer tanks and hi-sec mining becomes worthless.

Evidently you haven't done the maths on the ore changes. 0.0 being wholly self-sufficient is now a very real possibility (at least as far as t1 production goes). The yields on 0.0 exploration mining sites are now pretty much proportional to the demand for minerals in t1 production.

can you tell me how we managed to reduce the number of slots in all of nullsec to a miniscule fraction of hisec's capacity through sandbox magic

because well you can't sandbox your way around hard mechanics limitations

At the moment, hi-sec gets 3 massive "cost" advantages

1) A huge amount of free invulnerable, inalienable slots, often in the same station as you can easily get perfect refines, loads of office slots, research slots etc., etc.

2) CONCORD protection 24/7 at zero cost, which hugely reduces the overhead of moving finished products and materials.

3) A massive local supply of low-end minerals; it's much cheaper, logistically speaking, to move the high ends to where the low ends are than vice versa.

Now the Odessey ore changes will go some way to redressing cost 3, but hi-sec cost advantages 1 & 2 are left largely intact.

Until such time as either 0.0 stations get an efficiency advantage equivalent to those cost advantages, or else hi-sec stations charge "realistic" amounts for the use of their slots, very little industry will take place in 0.0; ammo, cap boosters, cyno frigates, etc.

Who in their right mind is going to do manufacture as an isk maker in null.

Yes, that's kind of the point. One might almost say that it's a good indicator that the situation is unbalanced.

I'm not disagreeing with your past experience, but how will that translate to post-odyssey when ice might actually be valuable and rare enough to be controllable, and experienced ice monopolists are also very experienced in 23/7 cloaky camping to suppress people's ability to grind in null-sec?

Yes, that's kind of the point. One might almost say that it's a good indicator that the situation is unbalanced.

The problem with a game full of competitive minmaxers is that everything has to be balanced to five nines otherwise something will be overpowered.

overwhelming firepower? you protect your sov/resources/members/friends etc

But passive income moon-goo rich null-seccers talking about industrial balance?

Also, if moongoo is so "passive", how come you don't have any?

If datacores are so passive, why doesn't everyone collect them?

overwhelming firepower? you protect your sov/resources/members/friends etc

covetors, and cloaked cyno ship.

solution to afk cloakers.

If ice becomes truly valuable *and* organizations see it as essential, they may very well work as a group and your strategy would indeed be how it gets handled.

But a lone guy simply monitoring intel along the pipe will just be a great old-school story to tell while you're mining.

Because it wasn't worth their time to arrange.

Are you saying a tech moon isn't worth your time to drop a pos on? That's all that's holding you back?

One has nothing to do with the other.

Also, if moongoo is so "passive", how come you don't have any?

almost 700k isk/unit ice.
150 blocks of ice per hour with a hulk in odyssey.
that's around 100m/hour mining ice.

ice is valuable

Having it, or not having it in my hangar doesn't change the fact that its existence has tilted the industrial balance of the game heavily towards null-sec.

Getting yourself into the position of having the POS on the moon is irrelevant, since CCP Soundwave doesn't believe rep grinding and skill training should figure in effort/reward figures for datacores. Datacores are entirely passive, they just magically appear in Jita 4-4 with no effort, didn't you know?

Cool.

Maybe ice can be the new "thing worth fighting for".

Please describe the nature of this "industrial balance" as you understand it.

If you're suggesting that it is the "total value extracted from a security space", then you are talking about something completely different than what advocates for an industrial balancing of nullsec are.

if i'm reading garpa right, it looks relatively evenly spread around 0.0. every one will have some and nobody will really be that interested in fighting for it.

If Malcanis wants to suggest he was merely talking about a sliver of the industrial picture when he brought up balance, that would be eminently fair.

But if anyone (you, Malc, or others) is willing to say that industrial balance as a whole is imbalanced in favor of null-sec, not only will I be laughing heartily, but I'll soon know which of my co-workers read the forums based on their laughter.

But if it is NEEDED, the tears factor alone won't be enough to deny it from enemies? :-)

I dunno, you might be right. Null can get real static, sometimes. Until it isn't.

You didn't answer the question. You're making up an argument, and then "laughing heartily" at your own invented argument.

How is the incentive to manufacture in a space tied to the value of materials extracted in that space? How are you measuring each of them? How are you comparing the relative values to decide how much extraction value is worth how much properly-incentivized industrial capacity?

i'd be surprised if any alliances could field enough miners to keep a decent proportion of their ice sites on a respawn timer. null sec isn't known for it's abundance of miners.

Quit making sense.

I'm not going to play mathematician for you.

Suffice it to say if null-seccers didn't highly prize those moon-goo riches they could simply sortie out of high-sec into null-sec to play our PvP reindeer games. The fact that null-seccers sit on the moon-goo means it has succeeded as becoming the "something worth fighting for" CCP strives for. If it were eye candy, or something else without industrial use you'd have a point. But it is an industrial good.

if i'm reading garpa right, it looks relatively evenly spread around 0.0. every one will have some and nobody will really be that interested in fighting for it.

You may be reading GARPA right, but you are missing the point.

Ice Anoms will bring even small groups of miners, which will bring gank fleets, which will bring defense fleets, which will actually cause small scale PVP to be a thing again. It's been called the "Nullsec Ecosystem," and it was killed because entitled bot miners browbeat CCP into making Highsec the only place to do all but the most specialized of industrial crap for the past few years.

Almost makes you wonder how unbloated things would seem if it wasn't so easy to plex so many separate accounts.

False positives and what not for slot allotment and actual demand.

With the huuuge amount of "fake" accounts, there has got to be a nice sized amount of double dipping going on.

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.

I'm not going to play mathematician for you.

i have no doubt that will happen. however, there's a difference between hotdropping miners and fighting for a resource.

I really can't begin to describe how wrong this is. What you are describing is alliances being rich because they owned t2 bpos, which is not the same as the alliance being rich because it is an industrial alliance. It means that alliances were rich because they were, essentially, lucky.

It was never possible to take a t2 bpo away from an industrial alliance or make it stop spigoting money for them (because they could build it in highsec). No alliance could "decide to be" an industrial alliance because they couldn't decide to have a t2 bpo (unless, of course, they were BoB). "Industrial alliances" did not earn money off the backs of their industrial members: they earned money by having a t2 bpo and having one or two people run it. It didn't mean people needed to mine, it didn't mean people needed to build, it just meant "this alliance has lots of money because it has a t2 bpo".

An alliance having a t2 money spigot didn't mean it was weak or strong; it was entirely irrelevant (hence Bob, the prototypical elitePvP alliance also being stupid wealthy).

This is really, really wrong on a fundamental level and I really hope this isn't the basis of game design post-oddessy. It's just such a botched view of what an industrial alliance even is and what eve's history is.

Right, it is a good used in industry. So what's the rate of exchange on industrial capacity and industrial goods extracted? All of this, of course, dependent on your completely unsubstantiated assertion that a greater overall value of industrial goods are extracted in nullsec than hisec.

*IF* high-sec extracts more total value, it is only because most players don't enjoy PvP, not because high-sec is such a great place for botting. If you made mining ships free and clone replacement after mining ship destruction free and even paid players to die, I still think you'd find most players aren't going to come out to and die for our enjoyment.

*IF* high-sec extracts more total value, it is only because most players don't enjoy PvP

Wouldn't it make more sense to equalise opportunity between 0.0 and hi-sec, so that JFing everything up from hi-sec becomes increasingly moot? Shouldn't 0.0 regions be able to easily trade with each other? Why should 0.0 have its throat cut before this is achieved?

Seriously, you're trying to cure a broken leg by banning bandages and plaster.

I'm rambling, but my point is, that in my opinion the way to weigh the balance is by the overall value of industrial goods extracted PER INDUSTRIALIST.

eh you probably won't bother so here: it is highly unlikely that 0.0 actually becomes self-sufficient for lowends (and ccp is explicit they do not want it to be) so if it becomes self-sufficient it will be nerfed

if 0.0 is self-sufficient a mineral compression nerf is entirely unneeded and pointless, if a mineral compression nerf is doing anything, then 0.0 is not self-sufficient and you are incentivizing importing finished products

Nullsec industrial alliances were killed off by the addition of invention and the resulting price rises in prom/dyspro (and later tech). We're hoping that the moon rebalance in Odyssey starts to wind that back a bit, but it's not the whole solution.

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.

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.

Great, then you fully support a much greater industrial capacity for null as this will be the most efficient way of balancing the value extracted per "industrialist" by drastically increasing their number. I'm glad we agree.

(I am, of course, mocking your ridiculous backpedaling, and am more than satisfied that your complete lack of knowledge and coherence has been demonstrated to anyone with a shred of sense)

By the way, it seems that T2 BPO are also killing the invention market, isn't it ?

The only logical explanation would be that somehow my experiences weren't representative.

Does null-sec want to trade half their moons with high-sec for half of high-secs slots?

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.

Wait...do you actually believe a majority of nullsec players who have never seen a cent from moongoo wouldnt take this in a heartbeat?

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.

Really though, you were a null player and all. It's so obvious from your complete lack of a clue.

Not really, no.

No. Another logical explanation is that you're including factors that are not relevant. If you want to talk individual wealth creation, don't include wealth-creation that is not individual; if you want to talk about total industry, then let's talk total industry and actually look at what can and can't be done rather than focus on a just one thing.

The simple fact is the vast majority of industry happens in highsec, and the reason for this is that industry is heavily unbalanced GÇö everything is easier, cheaper, safer, more effortless, to say nothing of risk-free. You are trying to hide this massive and blatantly obvious imbalance behind misapplied (and non-existing) statistics.

Why should they have to give up anything to get something that's still a fraction of what they should have to begin with?

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.

I want more slots in null-sec because I want them. I'm just not going to tell you it is a balance issue.

That's silly. Why are you ignoring a fact that provides an excellent reason why it should happen?

What's wrong with calling a balance issue a balance issue GÇö especially when it's such a well-known and obvious one GÇö and then ask that it be balanced properly?

The part I bolded is rather fascinating. Where does it come from?

I can't make the argument either is a balance issue. Maybe you can.

The part I bolded is rather fascinating. Where does it come from?

Take a wild guess who would have control over those moons. Because it wouldn't be high sec industrialists.

Should it matter? Either the tech moons are profitable or not. If they aren't then somone should fire the alliance's accountant.

Should it matter? Either the tech moons are profitable or not. If they aren't then somone should fire the alliance's accountant.

I mean think of it like this.... If a POS operation takes 100 million to operate for every 110 million it makes which leaves you 10 million profit. Sure that is only 10% profit, but if it's technically throwing away money if you don't perform the POS operations.

An old thread where some moron tried to claim that moongoo was unbeatable as an income source. It turned out that a single high-end moon provides 5bn a month and requires about 500 man-hours a month to do soGǪ incidentally, 500 man-hours of highsec ice mining provides about 5bn a month.

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.

Surely someone has realized this? Why still make moon produts?

They require 24/7 security in the form of fleets of hundreds of ships.

They require 24/7 security in the form of fleets of hundreds of ships.

They require 24/7 security in the form of fleets of hundreds of ships.

So you mean people sit there 24/7 in local waiting for something to happen?

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'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.

Maybe because it's too vague and dispersed a target to go after, and because you can't target it in its entirety even if you wanted to.

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.

The post you quoted says nothing of the sort. Like literally not even something remotely perceivable as such.

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.

I can't remember the last time I put together a 500 man fleet to go ice mining.

I'm talking to you as a collective front as some of you have stated that moon goo makes just as much as ice mining per hour.

I mean if moons weren't valuable then why the effort?

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)

GǪand at no point did anyone say that moongoo was worthless. It was just something you made up.

No-one said they weren't valuable either GÇö again, you made it up. You should probably take this opportunity to look up the concept of a strawman argument and check out why it's not a very good thing to try to use.

You specifically said ice mining was just as profitable as moon harvesting.

I did not specifically say it was worthless.

So what I am getting from this is that moon goo is valuable and makes null a much richer place than it would without it. At least richer enough to spend hundreds of man hours and billions worth of ships?

"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.

Take a wild guess who would have control over those moons. Because it wouldn't be high sec industrialists.

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.

But I thought GSF couldn't get into highsec! Clearly we should buff CONCORD.

"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.

LOL. Yeah, I didn't think that one out all the way.

Still, even THAT would be more "balance" than just null getting more null-sec slots.

It might also be a bit more INTERESTING.

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.

Yes? That does not make moon harvesting worthless or moons not valuable.

You just specifically asked why people mined moon goo, seeing as how it was worthless GÇö a claim that no-one did but you. So yes, yes you did.

It sounds like you're gearing up to assume that the two are mutually exclusive.

People are saying both at once because both are true, so what you should be doing is accepting both answers rather than just one of them.

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.

Thus the reason why we want that moon.

Maybe my grasp of diatribe is failing me, but last I checked asking a question was not making a statment.

I was just asking if you think it worthless as much as ice mining is (relative worthless), then why do people fight over it.

"Yes, it is valuable" then doesn't that mean its something null-sec has that hi-sec doesn't have.

The gameplay that goes into fielding and wielding the power necessary to take and defend moons is considered fun by some people. Weird, I know.

Yes, nullsec has moonmining and hisec does not.

I'm glad that we have established this fact.

At this point, I want to say that I am thankful that I got everyone to speak their mind on the subject and to increase the thread count.

We have ways to make high sec POS totally invulnerable that are within the rules. It would be horrid.

Also, just wondering what is balanced about null sec being unable to meet its ammo demands in peacetime due to having fewer slots than a single high sec system?

Can you say wardec?

Yet null DOES meet those ammo demands.

I'll posit for the moment that it manages to because it spends some of it's surplus riches.

They are valuable and worth the effort, in so much as we would rather have a fight every once in a while to defend/take a moon than bore ourselves to death watching ice harvesters cycle.

Some people find the opposit appealing, and would happily mine ice rather than go and defend/blow up something.

Both are equaly valuable to their respective parties.

This would be an issue if the moons were in docking range of a station. They're not so that rules out 99.999% of the high sec population who would want to contest it.

May I suggest using the search function next time, because you got exactly nothing new out of your trolling.

Yet null DOES meet those ammo demands. I'll posit for the moment that it manages to because it spends some of it's surplus riches.

Wanting stuff so that you experience less inconvenience doesn't always mean you are on the losing side of an unbalanced system.

I'm not playing a single player game where all the answers are simply given to me by a computer program.

Wanting stuff so that you experience less inconvenience doesn't always mean you are on the losing side of an unbalanced system.

Like I said in my OP, I have no deep conviction that my OP is right. Yours is a good point.

I imagine the NRDS crowd coveted more slots, too.

Heck, I'm sure high-sec covets more research slots.

Coveting is an essential part of Eve.

Yet null DOES meet those ammo demands. I'll posit for the moment that it manages to because it spends some of it's surplus riches.

Soon it will be able to do so because we spent our political capital.

Wanting stuff so that you experience less inconvenience doesn't always mean you are on the losing side of an unbalanced system.

And one of the beauties of Eve is that Eve manages to make nearly everyone covet.

Among my crowd of friends someone occassionally mentions wanting things and my friends and I have a standard reply: "It's good to want".

My friends obviously play MMOs. :-)

By importing it all.



We literally cannot build and maintain a single fleet of battleships with our entire outpost infrastructure.