Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Pr1ncess Alia
Perkone Caldari State
320
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 09:01:00 -
[211] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: How about linking to where anyone's asking for such a thing?
Again this comes back to just how massive the imbalance is. People simply don't want to believe it and they act as if it's the normal kind of EVE imbalance where Cruiser A has 10% more DPS than Cruiser B or something. Instead we're looking at an imbalance situation where Cruiser A has 295 DPS and Cruiser B has 10 DPS.
There are 5 systems in Caldari hi-sec that, combined, have 10% more production slots than THE WHOLE OF SOV NULL.
5 systems.
There are 28 systems in hi-sec that each have more slots than any sov region.
No one is asking to be able to make it so that a 5000 character alliance can be supported by "just a couple of systems". It sure would be nice if they could be supported by "just a couple of regions" though.
It could have written that sentiment in a much better way so, not your problem that you took it the wrong way. I agree with everything you just said.
I was trying to suggest that it's just silly how these major activity hubs just hop around and all we have to do is load up the JFs and bridge everything over to the next system everyone will live out of. At some point shouldn't there be real established logistics and all the things that should go into managing a massive alliance empire?
The 'size' of any alliance space is so lol... no one uses more than a tiny part at any time. Everything gets blinked around by cyno to wherever it's needed and this isn't some failing or injustice by 0.0 organizations... it's just a crappy way the game is designed and all of it sucks.
Just think if they'd never made the cyno. At some point it would be better to fan out and try to establish your own local supply line instead of risking mega-value hauling runs to high-sec
... but as you point out that's basically impossible on any given scale on 0.0.
...And as such perhaps the 5k size alliances living out of a couple stations at a given time wouldn't be possible (to bring it back around), nor intended?
Perhaps they should be given near limitless production and research capabilities, even without nerfing jfs/bridges... but to fix the invulnerable supply line issue it will need to be a must. And note then there is a real supply line to attack, as people might actually *gasp* be out collecting minerals and conducting industrial ops in their 0.0 space (which if you remember we also used to do, back in the day)
But there is so much about 0.0 that is crazy and CCP needs to start taking some hard looks at all of them. Their development of 0.0 from cradle to today get's a D- grade in my opinion.
The constructable-then-indestructible stations, everything about supercaps, I really shouldn't go on because I ramble
Everything about 0.0 seems like arbitrary crap placed by CCP to make it into a particular gameplay (sov/structure grind),
when all they'd had to do was realize the mistake of removing the "natural" barrier of having to actually travel 90 jumps into the middle of no where to live 90 jumps into the middle of nowhere. That being, the distance itself created the game play.
When you can go from A to Z by avoiding B-Y, think of all the gameplay opportunities being missed in those inbetween systems. We used to have it, securing lines through space, attacking them... space just used to mean something it doesn't now.
In a game built on the idea of a massive universe.. a game built on 'space', they took all the 'space' out of the space :P |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
3783
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 09:06:00 -
[212] - Quote
What I am worried about is instead of doing a ton of changes here and there as tweaks and revamps, there will be just two or three massive buffs/nerfs. Thus making the problems worse.
Example being the jump freighter. Yes, living in deep null was a major pain without the jump freighter years ago. The problem was it was a major pain when comparing it to living in low sec and high sec. So instead of increasing the difficulty of high sec logistics and decreasing the difficulty of null logistics, they gave us the jump freighter. Literally making everyone's hanger a diet Jita market at Jita prices.
And because logistics in high sec did not change one bit, it still remained king when compared to logistics of null even after the JF was introduced. So here we are, with the same bar of easy mode high sec functions. So do we keep buffing null logistics to make it more attractive? NOOOO!!!! That would not accomplish the goal at all.
But again, the issues are many and intertwined with each other. There is a lot of players who have been enjoying fine wine on a cheap beer budget. Sadly they will have tunnel vision and only care about them and not the health of the game. Just keep in mind that if a change needs to happen badly, do not be discouraged if at first it can't/shouldn't be done due to it causing other issues. It is only an issue if you do not address those at the same time, thus letting your original change/fix run wild causing more harm than good.
Is the juice worth the squeeze?
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
3783
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 09:13:00 -
[213] - Quote
As far as freighter convoys goes, one issue is how incredibly easy it is to kill them. So how do you make them nice and beefy to allow your escort to fight off would be attackers without making them invincible in high sec?
Just have the hit points scale depending on the security status of the system. Use the current hit points to remain the same as they are if they are in a 0.5 system. If they go to higher security status systems, then the hit points decrease down accordingly. If they go into low sec and into null, the hit points scale up to match.
Just tossing that idea out there. Suicide gankers remain happy and more importantly, it removes the, "Disregard the escort, gank the freighter." mentality a bit. Stil, there is other issues that would need to be addressed, like a solid reason to escort a freighter from one part of null to the other instead of just using a JF to do everything in 100% safety.
|
pussnheels
The Fiction Factory
1231
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 09:28:00 -
[214] - Quote
Stonecrusher Mortlock wrote:Why is there no way for us to attack supply lines in eve?
The addition of Jump capable ships, made supplying large groups less of a chore, but had the adverse effect of making supply lines completely immune to attack in any meaningful form.
Try as you might there's no effective way to cut your opponent off.
Warp dec there haulers? - NPC Corp
Gank them? - sec status drops to quickly to be effective.
Attack them in low sec or Null? - Local Intel, Instant 100% correct, check local see person, don't undock/jump.
AFK in Local? - add new jump points, AFKer cant be in every system at one time.
As it stands now in eve your supply lines are 99% safe 99% of the time if you only take the simplest of precautions.
Baring the random tard the logistic back bone of every group in EvE is safely tucked away behind Extremely easy counters.
When i first started playing EvE i Wanted to be a pirate praying on the Haulers moving the Supply's from high sec to low and null, and the riches from null/low to high-sec. In the start it was great fun fighting the fleets guarding these haulers for the hopes of getting the sweet loot that was inside of them. We Even had deals going to actively hunt some corps supply lines for a while.
But that Play stile is long dead, and in the past years of eve.
Now i spend my time patrolling WHs for even a small reminder of the days of old.
---------------------------------- all i see is a I DEMAND easier targets post
have a look at some killboards and you see how many JF get killed , all you need are some brains and some good teamwork I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
Capt Tenguru10
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 10:35:00 -
[215] - Quote
confirming friegtor pilots are the new miners |
Gustaf Heleneto
The Separatists Double Tap.
8
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 11:28:00 -
[216] - Quote
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:Gustaf Heleneto wrote:Increasing population and activity through incentives to bear the increased risk is the best way to create more PvP opportunities for those that seek it. Is it CCP's job to make more "PVP opportunities" for you? Or is it their job to balance their game over the broad spectrum of playstyles that occur within it or might occur within it?
Don't take me out of context! I never said anything about CCPs job here. My post was in response to another posters argument that removing the need to convoy goods to your home in nullsec has reduced PvP opportunity. My counter argument was that even though convoys don't happen the way they used to, the existence of jump capable ships has in fact INCREASED pvp opportunity, just changed its form a bit.
Now you bring up another issue...balance. That's an interesting word and has been used a lot of different ways around here. What does it mean, and when is it achieved? Does it mean there has to be an obvious counter for every action? Or does it mean everybody has to have the same access to all arts of the game given time and ISK? Or both? Or neither?
The way I see it is if both of those conditions are false there is true imbalance worthy of dev action. So when accessibility is limited to a few and there is no real counter then I consider it unbalanced. Take moon goo for example, the moon goo industry was dominated by large power blocs so good moons were not accessible to anybody other than another tech owning power bloc. So in that scenario we have a monopoly. Access to that kind of ISK generation is limited to a few groups and nobody except them can hope to change that because there is no real counter to an organization that large with that much access to ISK. This results in stalemates and NIPs in nullsec...nobody is happy or having fun. So CCP rebalanced by reducing the Tech bottleneck.
As far as logistics goes I do not believe it is unbalanced. Anybody can train up to a JF or rorqual and grind up to afford on just like everyone else. Additionally the jump capable ships actually INCREASE population and activity in 0.0 so they are inherently good for the game.
Sorry for any spelling errors...wrote this on my iPhone and it was a pain... |
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
504
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 11:34:00 -
[217] - Quote
Meh, if only this thread, about changes that are comming soon to Eve-O and people appear generally rather upset about, would get a fraction of the CSM attention as this one is getting, everything would be great.
I mean, nerfs to null sec logistics are not on any official CCP plan. Or maybe they are. Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook-á |
Gustaf Heleneto
The Separatists Double Tap.
8
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 11:43:00 -
[218] - Quote
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:Gustaf Heleneto wrote: This might be interesting for you...Find out how many ships are destroyed in nullsec on a daily/weekly/monthly basis or whatever...Then look at the total manufacturing capabilities of nullsec and ask yourself if nullsec can be self-sustaining? It can't.
So nerfing logistics is not the key. Just because it is 'difficult' to catch a freighter/JF doesn't mean you don't have more access to PvP BECAUSE of their existence.
So we can justify crap game mechanics purely on ship/module demand? Because that's all I'm hearing from this discussion. You do see the obvious retort? If 0.0 didn't have the instant ability to restock from high sec with little to no limiting factors for volume of supplies nor risk in transit, there wouldn't be the turnover of ships going boom that there is. ...now that's no answer though. We don't want to inhibit pvp because of crap logistical gameplay either... so there is a middle ground. There is an argument to be made for increasing manufacturing capabilities (among soooo many other support logistics) for 0.0 stations. They should be able to be self sufficient if they want to choose that option. But CCP has a track record of ignoring things like this in 0.0.... How about the argument that no one says you should be able to support a 5000 man 0.0 alliance out of just a couple stations? Where is this a written right and intended consequence? Are there not hundreds of arguments to make against eternal escalation? IMO, it's just too easy to blink all over the universe into whatever spot you want to place either one freighter or every damned ship in an alliance. Too easy to move assets. Too easy to project power. OP is 100% right, they have basically removed the ability to disrupt supply lines because the only option now is to either pray for one mistake or attack the entire infrastructure those supplies are constantly supporting. I played this entire last decade. I lived in multiple different regions of 0.0 before jump bridges (hell, before capital ships period). I've watched my side's freighters burn in move ops, I've had my own assets lost simply in transit. It was a nightmare, nerve racking, unfair... IT WAS EVE ONLINE. Our enemies had the save vulnerabilities, we were all on equal footing. We've long heard complaints about the structure grind in 0.0. About how much of a pain war itself is... do you not think this might be because there are **** mechanics making structure grind your only option? Perhaps there should other fronts to attack on (which there are, but not enough)... another vulnerability? I think there should be many vulnerabilities. And I think there is no question if they went too far with the system we have today. So, if I'm so smart and right, why haven't CCP acknowledged it and brought some much needed Achilles heels to the massive MASSIVE entities? Ones that should otherwise either be more independent in 0.0 for supplies or at least be vulnerable somewhere in the process of them moving supplies for 1,000 armies from Jita to the edge of known space. My guess is the obvious, that they decided that they had made their bed by putting the entire 0.0 endgame into sov and structure grind and never bothered to realize that what they made 0.0 into... the very root of the concept, was incredibly flawed and poorly implemented. It was laziness to fix the system at hand and it was eagerness to put out new shiny ships and abilities with little regard to the impact of the game in the long run. So, ~18 months, basically. And I say that as a person that lived it. Plenty before and plenty after. It was better before. It was harder and more competitive and more risky, more HTFU, just as this game is supposed to be.
I am all for a buff to nullsec industry! I think independence from high sec is one of the major ideas behind nullsec itself, and should be achievable!
Achilles heels...yes, but it would be completely unfair to totally destroy the security and space a large coalition has worked years to build! However, moon goo rebalance was a step in the right direction to rebalance the vice grip that certain coalitions have on nullsec at the moment!
|
Adeh Gamalar
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 11:50:00 -
[219] - Quote
Gustaf Heleneto wrote: "But 0.0ers can build the stuff they need!"
Not really. This might be interesting for you...Find out how many ships are destroyed in nullsec on a daily/weekly/monthly basis or whatever...Then look at the total manufacturing capabilities of nullsec and ask yourself if nullsec can be self-sustaining? It can't.
I hear this a lot but the conversation always seems to be about outpost build slots. A single large tower can spit out a huge number of ships every week and there are lots of moons in null. Why not just manufacture at a POS?
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9667
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 12:03:00 -
[220] - Quote
Adeh Gamalar wrote:Gustaf Heleneto wrote: "But 0.0ers can build the stuff they need!"
Not really. This might be interesting for you...Find out how many ships are destroyed in nullsec on a daily/weekly/monthly basis or whatever...Then look at the total manufacturing capabilities of nullsec and ask yourself if nullsec can be self-sustaining? It can't.
I hear this a lot but the conversation always seems to be about outpost build slots. A single large tower can spit out a huge number of ships every week and there are lots of moons in null. Why not just manufacture at a POS?
Because using POS is
(1) Horrible horrible horrible and that's not going to change any time soon
(2) Expensive, and that's going to change to even more expensive soon
(3) Even more risky than operating in a conquerable station
If you want nullsec manufacturing to operate out of POS, then hi-sec manufacturing would have to be nerfed with atomic napalm to be balanced with it. I prefer a solution that is less punitive to either.
0.0 Outposts exist. Why shouldn't they be at least upgradeable to match the good hi-sec stations?
1 Kings 12:11
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9667
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 12:13:00 -
[221] - Quote
Jowen Datloran wrote:Meh, if only this thread, about changes that are comming soon to Eve-O and people appear generally rather upset about, would get a fraction of the CSM attention as this one is getting, everything would be great. I mean, nerfs to null sec logistics are not on any official CCP plan. Or maybe they are.
Ali and Chitsa are leading the CSM conversation with CCP in the probing/exploration changes. Not all of us have to be involved experts on every topic
If you don't think that nullsec isn't going to be a major discussion topic with CCP this year, then I have good news for you: it is.
Prior to that discussion starting, I am interested in explaining and discussing the viewpoints that we'll be bringing to CCP. That a vibrant, player-centric (as opposed to structure-centric) active and diverse 0.0 is essential to the future of EVE.
Trashing the nullsec logistics supplyline before that goal is acheived because some people who don't live in 0.0 are ~mad that 6 billion ISK jump freighters are generally flown cautiously and their pilots avoid losing their ships to the best of their ability will not advance that goal in any way.
After the goal is achieved, it will become a moot point, because the level of traffic between 0.0 and hi-sec will fall dramatically, and the traffic between and within various parts of 0.0 will likewise increase.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9667
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 12:16:00 -
[222] - Quote
Darth Kilth wrote:A lot of people in this topic should really read this article.
"It's hard to make a man understand something when his livelihood depends on not understanding it"
1 Kings 12:11
|
Adeh Gamalar
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 12:16:00 -
[223] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Adeh Gamalar wrote:Gustaf Heleneto wrote: "But 0.0ers can build the stuff they need!"
Not really. This might be interesting for you...Find out how many ships are destroyed in nullsec on a daily/weekly/monthly basis or whatever...Then look at the total manufacturing capabilities of nullsec and ask yourself if nullsec can be self-sustaining? It can't.
I hear this a lot but the conversation always seems to be about outpost build slots. A single large tower can spit out a huge number of ships every week and there are lots of moons in null. Why not just manufacture at a POS? Because using POS is (1) Horrible horrible horrible and that's not going to change any time soon (2) Expensive, and that's going to change to even more expensive soon (3) Even more risky than operating in a conquerable station If you want nullsec manufacturing to operate out of POS, then hi-sec manufacturing would have to be nerfed with atomic napalm to be balanced with it. I prefer a solution that is less punitive to either. 0.0 Outposts exist. Why shouldn't they be at least upgradeable to match the good hi-sec stations?
Sure, upgrade the outposts - there is no good reason not to. But don't claim that null can't support itself when what you mean is that it actually can but nullsec players are just a little too lazy to deal with CCP's horrible POS mechanics. And let's face it, your points 2 and 3 are not very compelling. The risk is absolutely minimal unless you throw POSes up on the front lines of a conflict and the cost is entirely trivial if a POS is being used efficiently at its full capacity. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
1936
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 12:27:00 -
[224] - Quote
Adeh Gamalar wrote:Malcanis wrote:Adeh Gamalar wrote:Gustaf Heleneto wrote: "But 0.0ers can build the stuff they need!"
Not really. This might be interesting for you...Find out how many ships are destroyed in nullsec on a daily/weekly/monthly basis or whatever...Then look at the total manufacturing capabilities of nullsec and ask yourself if nullsec can be self-sustaining? It can't.
I hear this a lot but the conversation always seems to be about outpost build slots. A single large tower can spit out a huge number of ships every week and there are lots of moons in null. Why not just manufacture at a POS? Because using POS is (1) Horrible horrible horrible and that's not going to change any time soon (2) Expensive, and that's going to change to even more expensive soon (3) Even more risky than operating in a conquerable station If you want nullsec manufacturing to operate out of POS, then hi-sec manufacturing would have to be nerfed with atomic napalm to be balanced with it. I prefer a solution that is less punitive to either. 0.0 Outposts exist. Why shouldn't they be at least upgradeable to match the good hi-sec stations? Sure, upgrade the outposts - there is no good reason not to. But don't claim that null can't support itself when what you mean is that it actually can but nullsec players are just a little too lazy to deal with CCP's horrible POS mechanics. And let's face it, your points 2 and 3 are not very compelling. The risk is absolutely minimal unless you throw POSes up on the front lines of a conflict and the cost is entirely trivial if a POS is being used efficiently at its full capacity.
Underlined the important (and insane) part. You do know that POSs can and frequently are attacked, all the time, right?
So how foolish would it be to spend TRILLIONS on something that can be easily wiped away in short order when you can do the same thing in high sec FOR.FREE. and just ship it out? Show me ONE person that stupid and i'll show you a guy who is a millionaire (only because he used to be a BILLIONAIRE before he did stupid things).
What you said is literally the same as saying "why didn't that soldier use a paper clip to kill the enemy, why did he use the assault rifle he was issued, he must be lazy".....
I must be so lazy, a bought a hamburger from McDonald yesterday instead of going hunting for a stray cow that I would have then have to slaughter, clean, cut up and cook.... |
Adeh Gamalar
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 12:32:00 -
[225] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
Underlined the important (and insane) part. You do know that POSs can and frequently are attacked, all the time, right?
So how foolish would it be to spend TRILLIONS on something that can be easily wiped away in short order when you can do the same thing in high sec FOR.FREE. and just ship it out? Show me ONE person that stupid and i'll show you a guy who is a millionaire (only because he used to be a BILLIONAIRE before he did stupid things).
That's not an argument for keeping easy logistics to high-sec, though. Quite the opposite. What you are identifying is a consequence of those easy logistics. I agree with you that it would be silly to build in null when it is so easy to build in high and ship it to null but what that tells us is that it is the easy logistics that are undermining the point of building in null. It doesn't tell us that null couldn't be self-sufficient if the pipeline was cut off.
Quote: What you said is literally the same as saying "why didn't that soldier use a paper clip to kill the enemy, why did he use the assault rifle he was issued, he must be lazy".....
Not really. |
Gustaf Heleneto
The Separatists Double Tap.
9
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 12:48:00 -
[226] - Quote
Adeh Gamalar wrote:Malcanis wrote:Adeh Gamalar wrote:Gustaf Heleneto wrote: "But 0.0ers can build the stuff they need!"
Not really. This might be interesting for you...Find out how many ships are destroyed in nullsec on a daily/weekly/monthly basis or whatever...Then look at the total manufacturing capabilities of nullsec and ask yourself if nullsec can be self-sustaining? It can't.
I hear this a lot but the conversation always seems to be about outpost build slots. A single large tower can spit out a huge number of ships every week and there are lots of moons in null. Why not just manufacture at a POS? Because using POS is (1) Horrible horrible horrible and that's not going to change any time soon (2) Expensive, and that's going to change to even more expensive soon (3) Even more risky than operating in a conquerable station If you want nullsec manufacturing to operate out of POS, then hi-sec manufacturing would have to be nerfed with atomic napalm to be balanced with it. I prefer a solution that is less punitive to either. 0.0 Outposts exist. Why shouldn't they be at least upgradeable to match the good hi-sec stations? Sure, upgrade the outposts - there is no good reason not to. But don't claim that null can't support itself when what you mean is that it actually can but nullsec players are just a little too lazy to deal with CCP's horrible POS mechanics. And let's face it, your points 2 and 3 are not very compelling. The risk is absolutely minimal unless you throw POSes up on the front lines of a conflict and the cost is entirely trivial if a POS is being used efficiently at its full capacity.
And the same was true BEFORE jump capable ships. But people STILL manufacture in high and shipped to null. Another obstacle for pos manufacturing is organizational. Roles are a mess and there really isn't a good way to allow people to manufacture in POSes without adding risk of corporate theft. Add to that the hassle of transporting materials from your home station to refine at the refinery 3 jumps away and then back to the POS for manufacturing, when a single station in high sec can do it all and more...on top of the fact that you have to keep it secure and refuel constantly. A large POS costs 400millons every month to fuel. You can manufacturer he same amount of stuff a large pos pumps out at a high sec station for line fees and jump fuel and you won't spend 400mil a month. It's just the smart choice right now. Less risk, less hassle, higher efficiency.
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
1936
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 12:51:00 -
[227] - Quote
Adeh Gamalar wrote:[ That's not an argument for keeping easy logistics to high-sec, though. Quite the opposite. What you are identifying is a consequence of those easy logistics. I agree with you that it would be silly to build in null when it is so easy to build in high and ship it to null but what that tells us is that it is the easy logistics that are undermining the point of building in null. It doesn't tell us that null couldn't be self-sufficient if the pipeline was cut off.
This is why I tell people to consider human nature. You are looking at the issue backwards.
Changing the logistics doesn't make null industry any less crappy or risky. Nerf logistics and people can STILL wipe you null POS industry out, leaving you with only that which you can do in stations, which themselves are at least conquerable if not destroyable. End result is few to no people building stuff in null in any volume (as it is now) AND the industrialists in high sec have no way to access the null market that everyone is living off of now. Consequences of that could include less pvp in null as it becomes too expensive and what pvp is down is with less expensive ships.
You'd literally through a giant monkey wrench into the EVE economy and have the exact opposite effect of what you want to. It just doesn't work.
The currently too easy/safe logistics and power projection in EVE is (again) a necessary Evil that at least keeps the wheels of the economy churning (ie null sec pvp groups can at least still throw ships at each other). It CAN be changed, but the wrong changes to a delicate and complex system influence by human nature could mean absolute disaster. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
1936
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 12:57:00 -
[228] - Quote
Gustaf Heleneto wrote: And the same was true BEFORE jump capable ships. But people STILL manufacture in high and shipped to null. Another obstacle for pos manufacturing is organizational. Roles are a mess and there really isn't a good way to allow people to manufacture in POSes without adding risk of corporate theft. Add to that the hassle of transporting materials from your home station to refine at the refinery 3 jumps away and then back to the POS for manufacturing, when a single station in high sec can do it all and more...on top of the fact that you have to keep it secure and refuel constantly. A large POS costs 400millons every month to fuel. You can manufacturer he same amount of stuff a large pos pumps out at a high sec station for line fees and jump fuel and you won't spend 400mil a month. It's just the smart choice right now. Less risk, less hassle, higher efficiency.
+1
The underlined is the clearest indication that jump capability didn't cause the problem. It did amplify it in ways, but it wasn't the cause. You don't cure a patient by treating his symptoms. I learned that from watching House (lol).
The rest of this post illustrates the intertwined/entangled mess the situation is. Yea, it all sounds very easy to say "just nerf logistics/power projection and the problem is solved" but that's just not true, simple fixes don't fix complex problems. I know some people wish they could, but it just doesn't work that way.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9669
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 13:00:00 -
[229] - Quote
Adeh Gamalar wrote:Malcanis wrote:Adeh Gamalar wrote:Gustaf Heleneto wrote: "But 0.0ers can build the stuff they need!"
Not really. This might be interesting for you...Find out how many ships are destroyed in nullsec on a daily/weekly/monthly basis or whatever...Then look at the total manufacturing capabilities of nullsec and ask yourself if nullsec can be self-sustaining? It can't.
I hear this a lot but the conversation always seems to be about outpost build slots. A single large tower can spit out a huge number of ships every week and there are lots of moons in null. Why not just manufacture at a POS? Because using POS is (1) Horrible horrible horrible and that's not going to change any time soon (2) Expensive, and that's going to change to even more expensive soon (3) Even more risky than operating in a conquerable station If you want nullsec manufacturing to operate out of POS, then hi-sec manufacturing would have to be nerfed with atomic napalm to be balanced with it. I prefer a solution that is less punitive to either. 0.0 Outposts exist. Why shouldn't they be at least upgradeable to match the good hi-sec stations? Sure, upgrade the outposts - there is no good reason not to. But don't claim that null can't support itself when what you mean is that it actually can but nullsec players are just a little too lazy to deal with CCP's horrible POS mechanics. And let's face it, your points 2 and 3 are not very compelling. The risk is absolutely minimal unless you throw POSes up on the front lines of a conflict and the cost is entirely trivial if a POS is being used efficiently at its full capacity.
It's a ridiculous 'solution'.
OK I'll change the line to "Nullsec can't support itself with products that would have a TPC of less than 2 or 3 times what they cost in hi-sec".
If you think it's likely that players - you know, the average grunts who don't have 10 personal R64s and a Titan collection - will stay in a nullsec where they're forced to buy battleship hulls at 600 mill a pop when their income is barely higher than it would be in hi-sec, then I'd be delighted to hear your explaination of why you think that is.
Let's reverse the situation: suppose I take a proposal to CCP that all production and research slots be removed from NPC stations. After all, it's possible for people in empire to build what they need in POS, right? Would you call people objecting to the change "lazy" as well?
1 Kings 12:11
|
Adeh Gamalar
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 13:04:00 -
[230] - Quote
Quote: Another obstacle for pos manufacturing is organizational. Roles are a mess and there really isn't a good way to allow people to manufacture in POSes without adding risk of corporate theft.
Risk?! Theft?! In my eve? Surely not!
Quote: Add to that the hassle of transporting materials from your home station to refine at the refinery 3 jumps away and then back to the POS for manufacturing, when a single station in high sec can do it all and more...on top of the fact that you have to keep it secure and refuel constantly. A large POS costs 400millons every month to fuel. You can manufacturer he same amount of stuff a large pos pumps out at a high sec station for line fees and jump fuel and you won't spend 400mil a month. It's just the smart choice right now. Less risk, less hassle, higher efficiency.
I agree with all of that. It does make more sense to manufacture in highsec with the current system.
Which brings us to ...
Gustaf Heleneto wrote: And the same was true BEFORE jump capable ships. But people STILL manufacture in high and shipped to null.
I'm not sure this is entirely representative (didn't POSes used to be far less useful at that time?) but even if it is it just goes to show that null does not rely on easy logistics to highsec.
Basically, my point is that if null can already be self-sufficient, and it can, it doesn't need the highsec link. It just wants it because it makes life easier. And if people will still ship stuff to null (which I suspect they wouldn't if compression was removed along with an easy pipeline) without easy logistics then great - danger, conflict and player interaction will abound. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9670
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 13:10:00 -
[231] - Quote
Adeh Gamalar wrote:
Basically, my point is that if null can already be self-sufficient, and it can, it doesn't need the highsec link. It just wants it because it makes life easier. And if people will still ship stuff to null (which I suspect they wouldn't if compression was removed along with an easy pipeline) without easy logistics then great - danger, conflict and player interaction will abound.
And again, exactly the same argument applies to Empire. So would you advocate removing all slots from NPC stations?
Because if not, it seems like you're saying that it's fine for 0.0 manufacturers to operate under appalling comparitive disadvantages and you want NPC space to have every possible advantage.
Why would anyone make anything in Sov 0.0 under your program? Why would anyone even live there?
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9671
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 13:20:00 -
[232] - Quote
"Those guys flying the 10 DPS cruiser B should just fight harder. If they whine for CCP to make their cruiser have 295 DPS like Cruiser A, they're just being lazy because they don't want to deal with a 97% disadvantage. I can see why they''d want CCP to increase their damage by 2900% but the fact is that if enough of them got together and worked really hard they could spend 30 man hours to do something that a single guy flying Cruiser B could do in 1"
Convincing?
1 Kings 12:11
|
Adeh Gamalar
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 13:26:00 -
[233] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: It's a ridiculous 'solution'.
OK I'll change the line to "Nullsec can't support itself with products that would have a TPC of less than 2 or 3 times what they cost in hi-sec".
If you think it's likely that players - you know, the average grunts who don't have 10 personal R64s and a Titan collection - will stay in a nullsec where they're forced to buy battleship hulls at 600 mill a pop when their income is barely higher than it would be in hi-sec, then I'd be delighted to hear your explaination of why you think that is.
Here's the thing - comparisons to highsec prices are meaningless in a context where null is a self-sufficient holistic system. So, why would a battleship hull cost 600mil if built in null? Certainly not due to the additional costs that come from operating a POS. I can't quite remember how many BS arrays one can have at a single large tower but if memory serves it is either three or four, each of which can pump out, what, seven? eight? battleships a day. Worst case, that's 21 BS per tower per day, or 630 per month. The cost of building at a POS is going to add less than 1mil to each of those hulls.
So, why would the hull price be higher? Mineral costs are what you're thinking of, I guess. But if the costs are going to be that much higher because the mins are mined in null then the income from mining in null will also rise proportionately, and won't stay the same as it is in high-sec. Whatever the cause of the additional cost, the point is that this extra isk will simply circulate through the nullsec economy and will end up in the hands of nullsec players. If mineral costs are going to be three times higher then miners are going to be three times better off. Disconnecting the null economy from the high sec economy simply means that each will find its own equilibrium.
Quote: Let's reverse the situation: suppose I take a proposal to CCP that all production and research slots be removed from NPC stations. After all, it's possible for people in empire to build what they need in POS, right? Would you call people objecting to the change "lazy" as well?
Yes. I think that would be entirely appropriate. The whole business of risk-free cheap building in stations when mechanics have been implemented to do it properly in a fully player driven way is ridiculous. It's a holdover from the days before POSes were introduced and maintaining the option simply removes opportunities for conflict and player interaction from the game. I can see a reason to have some very minimal facilities available for brand new players but, beyond that, they don't seem to serve a purpose beyond making life unnecessarily easy for people who want 100% security.
|
Adeh Gamalar
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 13:32:00 -
[234] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Adeh Gamalar wrote:
Basically, my point is that if null can already be self-sufficient, and it can, it doesn't need the highsec link. It just wants it because it makes life easier. And if people will still ship stuff to null (which I suspect they wouldn't if compression was removed along with an easy pipeline) without easy logistics then great - danger, conflict and player interaction will abound.
And again, exactly the same argument applies to Empire. So would you advocate removing all slots from NPC stations? Because if not, it seems like you're saying that it's fine for 0.0 manufacturers to operate under appalling comparitive disadvantages and you want NPC space to have every possible advantage. Why would anyone make anything in Sov 0.0 under your program? Why would anyone even live there?
Again, I'm happy to see almost all NPC slots go (with the exception of what is necessary for brand new players). But that is kind of irrelevant. If null is to be self-sufficient then talking about 'competition' with empire is pointless. The two systems need to be decoupled with only thin and dangerous pipelines between each other. They should not be competing with each other because in a competition one of them will always win and that will ruin the corresponding economic sector in the other area.
The real answer to the question of how you motivate people to make things in null is to pretty much give them no choice. Make the logistics between high and null sufficiently tricky and people will build in null rather than ship.
|
Adeh Gamalar
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 13:34:00 -
[235] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:"Those guys flying the 10 DPS cruiser B should just fight harder. If they whine for CCP to make their cruiser have 295 DPS like Cruiser A, they're just being lazy because they don't want to deal with a 97% disadvantage. I can see why they''d want CCP to increase their damage by 2900% but the fact is that if enough of them got together and worked really hard they could spend 30 man hours to do something that a single guy flying Cruiser B could do in 1"
Convincing?
Not really a useful representation of my claims so I'll pass on commenting on it. It still treats things as a competition between high and null where I'm suggesting that the two should have their economies effectively decoupled. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
1937
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 13:40:00 -
[236] - Quote
Adeh Gamalar wrote: Here's the thing - comparisons to highsec prices are meaningless in a context where null is a self-sufficient holistic system. So, why would a battleship hull cost 600mil if built in null? Certainly not due to the additional costs that come from operating a POS. I can't quite remember how many BS arrays one can have at a single large tower but if memory serves it is either three or four, each of which can pump out, what, seven? eight? battleships a day. Worst case, that's 21 BS per tower per day, or 630 per month. The cost of building at a POS is going to add less than 1mil to each of those hulls.
What about the "cost" of the thousands of actual human beings who have to sit at keyboards at times they don't want to to defend such POSes? What happens when that groups numbers dwindle to nothing because being FORCED to play a video game isn't fun? The pos gets killed and all that invested capital is gone with it.
OR
Build in high sec in perfect safety and very cheaply and move it to null with easy logistics.
OR (if easy logistics gets nerfed)
Just stay out of null sec, putter around in low sec or do FW, or say screw EVe altogether.
Like I said, you don't consider actual human nature when posting your opinions. This is a video game and now on is going to do as you suggest, people are hard pressed to do inconvenient/dangerous/tedious things in real life, why would they do it in a video game?
Quote: So, why would the hull price be higher? Mineral costs are what you're thinking of, I guess. But if the costs are going to be that much higher because the mins are mined in null then the income from mining in null will also rise proportionately, and won't stay the same as it is in high-sec. Whatever the cause of the additional cost, the point is that this extra isk will simply circulate through the nullsec economy and will end up in the hands of nullsec players. If mineral costs are going to be three times higher then miners are going to be three times better off. Disconnecting the null economy from the high sec economy simply means that each will find its own equilibrium.
Null price would be higher, WAY higher because industrialist in null would have to spend money ALL THE TIME to replace destroyed POSs.
Quote: Let's reverse the situation: suppose I take a proposal to CCP that all production and research slots be removed from NPC stations. After all, it's possible for people in empire to build what they need in POS, right? Would you call people objecting to the change "lazy" as well?
[quote] Yes. I think that would be entirely appropriate. The whole business of risk-free cheap building in stations when mechanics have been implemented to do it properly in a fully player driven way is ridiculous. It's a holdover from the days before POSes were introduced and maintaining the option simply removes opportunities for conflict and player interaction from the game. I can see a reason to have some very minimal facilities available for brand new players but, beyond that, they don't seem to serve a purpose beyond making life unnecessarily easy for people who want 100% security.
The above is the main rpobelm that needs fixing before anything else is considered. Bulding in empire isn't a choice, it's a necessity because industrialists have to make a profit, and losing a dozen POSs a month isn't profitable (just so you can say "but I built it in null)...
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
1937
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 13:42:00 -
[237] - Quote
Adeh Gamalar wrote:
Again, I'm happy to see almost all NPC slots go (with the exception of what is necessary for brand new players). But that is kind of irrelevant. If null is to be self-sufficient then talking about 'competition' with empire is pointless. The two systems need to be decoupled with only thin and dangerous pipelines between each other. They should not be competing with each other because in a competition one of them will always win and that will ruin the corresponding economic sector in the other area.
The real answer to the question of how you motivate people to make things in null is to pretty much give them no choice. Make the logistics between high and null sufficiently tricky and people will build in null rather than ship.
You can't "give them no choice" in a video game they can uninstall, dude. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9677
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 13:42:00 -
[238] - Quote
Adeh Gamalar wrote:Malcanis wrote:"Those guys flying the 10 DPS cruiser B should just fight harder. If they whine for CCP to make their cruiser have 295 DPS like Cruiser A, they're just being lazy because they don't want to deal with a 97% disadvantage. I can see why they''d want CCP to increase their damage by 2900% but the fact is that if enough of them got together and worked really hard they could spend 30 man hours to do something that a single guy flying Cruiser B could do in 1"
Convincing? Not really a useful representation of my claims so I'll pass on commenting on it. It still treats things as a competition between high and null where I'm suggesting that the two should have their economies effectively decoupled.
So why should people living in 0.0 be the ones to have the inefficient and inadequate production capability? Surely it's the lazy people living in NPC space, who don't fight for the space, who don't pay for the stations, who dont have to import their high bulk low ends, who also get mission agents, R&D agents, CONCORD deterring aggression 24/7 for free... why should they also get production facilities that grossly overpower those available in 0.0
To put it another way: why should it take a hi sec player x hours of ISK making to pay for a batleship and 2x or 3x hours for a 0.0 player to do the same? Because that's what you're advocating, and you haven't even given a reason why this should be apart from "0.0 players are lazy for wanting the same potential as hi-sec".
Why do you want 0.0 existence to be so gimped compared to hi-sec?
1 Kings 12:11
|
Adeh Gamalar
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 13:44:00 -
[239] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Adeh Gamalar wrote:
Again, I'm happy to see almost all NPC slots go (with the exception of what is necessary for brand new players). But that is kind of irrelevant. If null is to be self-sufficient then talking about 'competition' with empire is pointless. The two systems need to be decoupled with only thin and dangerous pipelines between each other. They should not be competing with each other because in a competition one of them will always win and that will ruin the corresponding economic sector in the other area.
The real answer to the question of how you motivate people to make things in null is to pretty much give them no choice. Make the logistics between high and null sufficiently tricky and people will build in null rather than ship.
You can't "give them no choice" in a video game they can uninstall, dude.
Down that argumentative route madness lies. Every single game mechanics restricts and removes choices so please don't make out that the suggestion that a choice should be restricted or removed is anything novel at all. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9677
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 13:44:00 -
[240] - Quote
Adeh Gamalar, can you give me an overview of your experience in 0.0?
1 Kings 12:11
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |