|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 56 post(s) |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
361
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:20:00 -
[1] - Quote
Good to see changes coming through from the forums I've been active in, certainly feels like the player base have been listened to on many things here. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
362
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:34:00 -
[2] - Quote
Doc McCoy wrote:Maybe I'm alone in reading "Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space" meaning that we will be able to anchor them places other than moons. That would really rock, but I'm guessing that's not what the dev blog meant.
I hope its the way you and I both read it. Not requiring standings and not needing to be at a moon goes with the whole 'Empires losing control' thing
I'm also hoping they've sneakily built a group of deployable structures that replace towers (but still use PI to build of course). I look forward to standing up my first tower (or equivalent) :) |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
362
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 20:42:00 -
[3] - Quote
Querns wrote: If you had said, "at one time in my storied eve experience I had copied capital BPOs in lowsec," repeated for every single eve economic activity, especially the ones that are being changed at the time, I'd be more inclined to believe you, but expecting me to believe that you do every single one of these activities all at once stretches your credibility pretty far.
Actually it depends on the scale of activity too. I am just over 6 months since clonebirth and do manufacture, explot, invention, tech II production, mining and PI on a daily basis. Nothing full industrial scale as that would bore me personally but enough to give me variety. How much of each activity someone performs is simply a matter of how much time they have to invest in EvE. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
362
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 21:29:00 -
[4] - Quote
I have a feeling that the indy management is moving to a similar method to PI in that once you have your stations somewhere you will be able to manage them from anywhere. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
362
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:03:00 -
[5] - Quote
Question to the devs: Will S&I missions be addressed during the upcoming release?
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
362
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 09:57:00 -
[6] - Quote
Hmmmconspiracy theory moment...many people are saying they will simply not use POS anymore...less people using them makes it easier to replace the entire POS mechanics. Could this be a means to an end? |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
362
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:15:00 -
[7] - Quote
think of it as overtime for the station crew
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
362
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 12:16:00 -
[8] - Quote
Abyss Azizora wrote:
Does that means moons are no longer required? Hence these can be placed in infinite ammounts anywhere in highsec systems?
Devs responded in an earlier post that moons will still be required for anchoring |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 16:47:00 -
[9] - Quote
I don't think that many people if any will quit because of this, we are being warned waaaaay in advance of the changes to come, People will simply adapt to the new ways or do something else that suits them instead. As far as I can tell these changes will mean greater reward for the more proactive industrialist.
I look forward to finding out more details regarding invention as soon as it is available. I really hope they allow us to use RP directly from agents at a much better rate than if you physicalize into a datacore and sell. Give research agents a reason to be used beyond a nice treat once a year at datacore sales time. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 00:05:00 -
[10] - Quote
Hopefully a POS will be beneficial although with it's risks and additional effort to run.
On a side note I do make them should any new industrialist want one post summer release :) |
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 08:59:00 -
[11] - Quote
I do hope they are looking at a full mission overhaul now for maybe the winter release since standings grind is no longer as necessary (though it still gives access to higher mission levels, better refining etc) |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 09:20:00 -
[12] - Quote
We should probably wait to see how the 'Teams' aspect will work out, standings may still be important some way, just not for the initial standing up the tower. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 11:56:00 -
[13] - Quote
Yongtau Naskingar wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:You're paying the workers. And for the IP licensing costs to be able to make things, because people have pushed through changes on Empire patent law. And if you don't pay, they'll seize all your ISK, stored in the central banking systems. And if you want more research done at the same time, you need more workers and more equipment, which is expensive since you don't really have the room for it. If you add more slots, you have more room, and the costs go down. Kinda like if you have more people working, you also need to rent more chairs, managers, janitors, etc.
Or increased maintenance costs on automated systems, just like factories in rl...things aren't magically made from goods, they are processed and that carries inherent overheads no matter where you do it. CCP could model this by making manufacture jobs consume mechanical parts and robotics per run, test cultures, bacteria, Water cooled CPU etc for research runs. This would simply add complexity though (Unless the super whizzy GUI will deal with the nastiness).
People would still complain about the new form of equivalent fuel for research rather than rejoice in having as many slots as they want with the associated cost. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 11:59:00 -
[14] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:What? Did someone just say scaling taxes apply to POS owners? Really? My manufacturing and research at the POS I'm paying 450m a month in fuel to run... is going to be taxed?
Or do you mean starting a job on the station floor, not at the actual POS?
Scaling costs will apply to all, just think of it as overhead on machine refits/repairs/scaling up plant lines etc.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 12:38:00 -
[15] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Or increased maintenance costs on automated systems, just like factories in rl...things aren't magically made from goods, they are processed and that carries inherent overheads no matter where you do it. CCP could model this by making manufacture jobs consume mechanical parts and robotics per run, test cultures, bacteria, Water cooled CPU etc for research runs. This would simply add complexity though (Unless the super whizzy GUI will deal with the nastiness).
My factory is completely automated. All of the things necessary to make it run and maintain it are included in the "fuel block". Remember how all of that stuff was combined into a block to make running a POS less of a pain in the butt?
I was just making an example case for why, but it stands to reason that the more you push the factory the more it'll cost in maintenance overheads. Would you rather this be a tax for simplicity or shipping more fuel blocks which as you say contain all the goodies required for maintenance etc...and as far as I know stations are almost always manned in some way or another. We just don't list crew as it would over-complicate things. A fully automated system will fail at some piont no matter how good it is. The more complexthe system, the more failures. Squishy humans will always be required to a degree |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 12:47:00 -
[16] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: I was just making an example case for why, but it stands to reason that the more you push the factory the more it'll cost in maintenance overheads. Would you rather this be a tax for simplicity or shipping more fuel blocks which as you say contain all the goodies required for maintenance etc...and as far as I know stations are almost always manned in some way or another. We just don't list crew as it would over-complicate things. A fully automated system will fail at some piont no matter how good it is. The more complexthe system, the more failures. Squishy humans will always be required to a degree
It was CCP who changed POSs to use the same amount of fuel regardless of which modules you had onlined there, not me. As far as I'm concerned, 28,800 fuel blocks a month on a large POS is already covering everything I can fit on it. If they want to *reduce* my fuel cost if I offline modules, fine I have no problem with that. Otherwise, just piling on even more costs will have a single effect on me as a small business owner: I'll take down the POS and not bother building any more.
I'm new to POS management and will be setting one up just as soon as I can so I'm thinking CCP expect this will balance out...and less profit is better than no profit so many people will consider quitting then just carry on as is and accept it.. Also I would expect that your POS would still manufacture the same amount after the release as it does now without incurring costs. I *think* the change is that if you stack more jobs onto a lab than its optimal rating it will incur the stacking costs per extra job. This is yet to be made clear in a future blog though.
As a side note I only just earned the standings required to stand up a POS but am not concerned about the time this has taken due to the other benefits from having done so. I have no issue with dropping the standings requirement but would like to see it have some impact in some way on the whole S&I area to benefit those who have gone through the grind. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 12:55:00 -
[17] - Quote
nope, the next 4blogs should cover this
I'm thinking the number of blogs is a good indication of the extent of the S&I overhaul...can only be a good thing but I'm sure there will be ...niggles... |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 14:43:00 -
[18] - Quote
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:I do hope they are looking at a full mission overhaul now for maybe the winter release since standings grind is no longer as necessary (though it still gives access to higher mission levels, better refining etc) Standings are still required for reprocessing & refining except if you want to use an array at a POS. Sounds like more 'dumbing down' of the game doesn't it. Standings are also still required to work for higher level mission agents. Standings are still required to reduce taxes incurred from trading on the market. Have I missed any other current reasons to have high standings ?
Research agent level, although that needs addressing during the S&I changes...you get nowhere near enough datacores foor it to be useful to invention, I proposed a while back that RP can be used directly in an invention job at a preferential rate, though you could still create a datacore and sell it if you chose. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 14:53:00 -
[19] - Quote
I'd also suggest we wait and see what the whole 'team' concept is too...could be good and mitigate lots of the effort..could be horrid :D |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
363
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 15:36:00 -
[20] - Quote
I'm thinking there will be a 'Lazy Event Horizon', a zone where people can't be bothered going further out and having to haul stuff back to Jita/Dixie etc...these systems will become the benchmark for the congestion fee that will be tolerated... |
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
370
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 14:35:00 -
[21] - Quote
I must be too much of an old RPG player...I couldn't imagine just buying a char I have nothing invested in! |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
374
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 23:57:00 -
[22] - Quote
UK is still imperial no matter what the EU say...except for science stuff then it's metric...confusing as hell for us when we were in school :D
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
374
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 12:27:00 -
[23] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:UK is still imperial no matter what the EU say...except for science stuff then it's metric...confusing as hell for us when we were in school :D
Most things are sold in Metric. They may be similar in size to the imperial measurements, but they're done in metric. So you won't buy a pound of jam. you'll buy 450 grams. It's pretty much just: Milk, Beer and distance/speed on roads that's still done in Imperial. Everything else is metric.
Actually if you get decent jam here it's sold in 454 gram pots...guess what that converts to in imperial :D
We define ourselves physicslly in imperial as in feet and inches, stone, pounds, and ounces. Distance and area are in miles, most here haven't a concept of how far a kilometre is but tell us it is just over half a mile and we know its a 10 minute walk or so. I was born 2 years after decimalization here so grew up using both methods. Someone said this is off topic but it actually shows exactly the same thinking.
Those happy with the old way will want to stay with it, those caught in the change will either adapt or wish things had never changed. Those that start after the change will look at the old way of doing things and think 'But that's nuts!'
just because those who are used to the old ways of things aren't happy doesn't mean that the change isn't required or indeed necessary.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
375
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 11:18:00 -
[24] - Quote
Just a thought but *why* does everything have to be better in nullsec?
Industry should always benefit from stability rather than chaos thus hisec is the natural choice. This also introduces more people moving stuff from hisec to losec and vice versa. If these changes make things so null is better than everywhere for everything then this ends up forcing everyone to move to null. However there is no way in hell a new player can hope to make a difference in null. They simply have to join a nullsec corp and follow their rules. No individual choice anymore.
I really hope this isn't aimed at nerfing hisec and forcing people to null as this will homogenize the player base and kill the game for the casual player, hence killing the game in its entirety. There have to be areas for all play styles, and those areas have to have some benefit*for* those playstyles. hisec should remain the industry powerhouse to promote players to move goods between the security sectors. Otherwise why would anyone ever need to move otherwise? For combat? that'd just become dull...move blob A to engage blob B and change errrrmmmm well nothing overall...
lo/null should remain with mostly better resources, but industry should benefit from hisec stability, this makes for greater player movement, this more player interaction. Forcing all players to need to play in one are will just make the game dull and lead to those without enough time to dedicate to constant warfare, or without the inclination to be part of a large faceless group no longer bothering with the game. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
379
|
Posted - 2014.04.21 15:14:00 -
[25] - Quote
Soldarius wrote: Hisec has enjoyed a massive advantage vs nulsec for 10 years. Soon people may actually build something in nulsec besides supers and titans via mineral compression.
Hisec has a massive advantage? Ok as i'm still relatively new here could you tell me the last time hisec threw away the equivalent of 75 titans in a battle or fielded multibazillion blobs of archons?
Hisec has *no* advantages already...at least leave us the ability to run stable industry... |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
381
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 05:44:00 -
[26] - Quote
Samsung Tsurpalen wrote:
Hisec does have a massive advantage when it comes to industry, and it's pretty straightforward. CONCORD and the lack of bubbles lets Hisec industrialists move freighters around like it's no big deal, whereas in nullsec you need to jump all of your stuff in (which is way harder and costs more).
That's really THE thing that separates null/low markets from hisec markets and is why nobody really builds there.
The only advantage nullsec has over high right now is that there is access to high end combat anomalies that can be run afk, the best PI extraction rates, and it's basically the only place to go for exploration
So apart from those three things that generate huge incom not even feasible in hisec...along with moon mining and pretty good safety within sov protection null has no advantage???
The freight advantage you speak of in hisec? Move more than 100 mil and you will be ganked. Afk in anything and you are likely to be ganked. Compare that to null where you just said that it's possible to afk the supposedly hardest combat anoms? As for CONCORD? They show up after you've been ganked and looted...big help...
Now i'm not saying hisec is too hard as another poster seemed to think but it has different challenges, and to make money from industry there takes a lot of effort and planning. My point was that there needs to be different dynamics for each security region otherwise they will stagnate and die. It makes sense for hisec to be stable industry, losec to be dangerous borderlands and null to be the equivalent of gold rush heaven for resources.
There need to remain good reason to move between sectors hence my belief that the current hisec manufacturing state is healthy for the game. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
381
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 06:00:00 -
[27] - Quote
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:
3. Null becoming more profitable is great...
Agree generally with most of your post except this. Null is already the most profitable by a large margin...making it more so is unnecessary and more unbalancing in my opinion.
Profit from resources and combat should increase moving from hi to nullsec. Profit from business should decrease from hi to nullsec. Resources should be more readily available in null but harder to process as this takes complex factories. Hisec should have better facilities as stability allows for them to be optimized.
This would lead to greater travel between sectors and a richer game. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
381
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 09:53:00 -
[28] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
Are you going to dispute that, at present, S&I is massively and overwhelmingly more profitable in hi-sec?
Can't comment on 'massively and overwhelmingly' without statistics to quantify it (i'd be interested to see them) but even if it is why is that bad? Null is definitely 'massively and overwhelmingly' more profitable in income from resources, moon mining (Where is that in hisec?), ratting opportunities (AFK missioning in carriers is a common theme in threads it seems) and any of the other income streams I may have forgotten. Why is it bad for it to be necessary to trade between the 'safe' (yeah right) hisec areas that provide stability for S&I to flourish, and the outlands where resources are greatest (by far)?
It must be better for the game to have areas where different careers have better opportunites. Exploration, resource extraction and combat already have much better value in null. Having it be advantageous to move those goods to hisec creates player movement and interaction which can only be good.
People will reply with risk vs reward about hisec income, but what happened to effort vs reward (which after all is what risk management boils down to).. To make these vast sums of profit in hisec (again I'd love to see the stats on this compared to lo/nullsec) requires a great deal of effort. S&I has a large time and isk investment to become profitable and provides the markets for the moon goo, high end minerals, goods for t3 production etc. If everything is pushed to losec for maximum profit why would anyone ever leave their own safe little sov enclave for anything but blob warfare or interceptor roams?
For the economy to remain healthy there needs to be movement of both players and goods, import and export from each area must remain strong. One of the biggest draws of Eve for me is the ability to have hisec industrial areas where I make steady isk. losec riskier areas where I get materials for industry, and nullsec providing me with stuff I can't get yet. I interact with players in each of these areas in different ways and the game to me is all the better for that. If I am forced to move to null to have any hope of making reasonable isk where is the player choice now? |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
382
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 11:00:00 -
[29] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Are you going to dispute that only a very small minority cares about S&I in 00 sec? For those, a buff without this ridiculous stuff happening around High sec S&I would have been enough.
I don't even think industry in null should be buffed...why should it? I am happy that S&I is being addressed but in my opinion it should be for the betterment of the game features not the betterment of profit in any one area. I think I've already made clear my view that hisec *should* be better for S&I anyway...waiting for reasoned arguments as to why this shouldn't be the case and I'm surprised I haven't received any yet... |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
382
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 13:28:00 -
[30] - Quote
Urziel99 wrote:Malcanis wrote: Are you going to dispute that, at present, S&I is massively and overwhlemingly more profitable in hi-sec?
Are you going to dispute that moon mining, gas harvesting, drug manufacturing, ore mining (when it happens), exploration, ratting, plexing, salvaging and npc missions are massively and overwhelmingly more profitable in nullsec? Are you also going to dispute that in order to be "massively and overwhelmingly profitable" in S&I that I have to put orders of magnitude more isk on the table than any of those activities in nullsec? I await your meager defense with baited breath.
Would be interesting to see the stats on capital investment compared to return on that too for nullsec activities compared to losec and hisec... |
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
382
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 14:52:00 -
[31] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:... snippety snip ... you have to put orders of magnitude more isk on the table, but get virtually zero risk and incredibly low requirement to log in
industry is a high-capital low-effort activity and so naturally it requires much more capital than low-capital high-effort activities
any good industrialist would know that effort is a resource so i'm guessing you're not one
Interesting to see the different views on this but I stand by my point which your view somewhat backs up. Hisec should (in my opinion) be where the bulk of S&I takes place due to that stability (I won't say safety because I disagree there), nullsec should be the major resource areas, but S&I should suffer due to the inherent instability of the area. You state that there is no market in null for many of the resources, that simply means it is a logistical exercise to get the raw goods to the market that requires them. The flow of people, materials and finished goods back and forth is the key to a healthy economy.
An industrialist knows that the best materials almost always come from the most dangerous areas...they would also never dream of putting a fragile hitech S&I centre in such a location. The real trick is to balance the extraction, transport and production elements for maximum profit. I very much doubt that the % profit on manufacturing in hisec is higher than the % profit on running combat anoms etc in null when comparing the amount of isk in play in the transaction (goods for the S&I player, ship for the anom runner).
As you say effort is a resource, and profit is the result of selling something at a higher value than the effort required to produce it. If nullsec folks want more of the S&I profit that is sooo vast in hisec then why don't they train an alt to run the S&I side of things there and turn their own raw materials into huge profits without any middle men? |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
383
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 15:26:00 -
[32] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Interesting to see the different views ...blurb....
i don't care about ~reality~ arguments in a video game when they're not grounded in good game design and every argument that is made that is about "well reality says..." with no discussion of why that is good game design and balance is junk. highsec will continue to have a large quantity of industry because it's stable and many industrialists are risk-averse. however those willing to move to null will reap increased rewards for their massively increased risk and increased expenses.
In no place here did I mention reality, I was talking in game terms. As stated I believe that each area should have it's own niche to promote travel between them in one way or another. Don't like the people who live in hisec who make moey from industry? Do it better than them then, beat them in market PvP rather than just buff nullsec for an advantage for no reason other than because it is nullsec.
Weaselior wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: I very much doubt that the % profit on manufacturing in hisec is higher than the % profit on running combat anoms etc in null when comparing the amount of isk in play in the transaction (goods for the S&I player, ship for the anom runner).
i very much doubt that this lump of titanium has as much citrus as this lemon you keep trying to compare radically different methods of making isk: industry is a high-capital low-effort way to make isk through small returns on large sums that scales up. anoming is a low-capital high-effort way to make isk through large returns on small initial sums that does not scale up you keep trying to compare things that are not at all alike and ignoring why they're different. industry is how you become rich because of compound interest. mining and anoming are how you build up initial sums of money because the return, while capped in absolute terms, is much higher in percentage terms when you're poor
Indeed I was comparing different means of generating isk, again with my point being that each region should in fact have a unique way of making isk that is better than the other regions. If it is so hard to make isk in nullsec compared to hisec how do the large alliances produce enough to afford so many titans? Let alone throw so many away in one battle...
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: As you say effort is a resource, and profit is the result of selling something at a higher value than the effort required to produce it. If nullsec folks want more of the S&I profit that is sooo vast in hisec then why don't they train an alt to run the S&I side of things there and turn their own raw materials into huge profits without any middle men?
they do. because industry is so broken in 0.0 with the current model, they put that alt in highsec even if they'd rather do industry in null.[/quote]
So most would rather do S&I in null with their S&I alt? Why? Convenience? This would then be giving a higher return on less effort.
I will clarify my point in case I drifted over the last few posts. I am happy that S&I is better in hisec and that resource generation and reward is higher in null (with losec lay somewhere between). I do not see and still am to be convinced that S&I *needs* to be better in null for the improvement of the game. This would lead to less movement of people and materials, stagnating trade and homogenizing the player base into a few nullsec alliances. Hisec would effectively become an oversized training ground and those who do not have the time required to dedicate to a nullsec lifestyle would be excluded from the game to all intents and purposes. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
383
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 16:29:00 -
[33] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:
that is a problem, and one that is rightly being fixed. highsec will have its risk-free production, nullsec will have its riskier but more profitable production.
I still don't see why nullsec industry should be buffed. Unlimited slots on pos will already give the stations in null a massive bonus, and just how risky is it to manufacture stuff deep in goon space? Or any other large sov alliance? It must be pretty safe there for you to be able to offer out systems to rent otherwise nobody would rent there for fear of losing their investment.
Weaselior wrote:
I'm not, because I like to do industry and would like to be able to do it in nullsec, build up industrial zones, and create much better gameplay than the current "make courier contracts from jita to factory, install bazillion jobs, make courier contract back, list on market, repeat"
industry should be profitable and doable in null. large amounts of it will continue to be in highsec because that's where jita and the risk-free industry is. but at last nullsec will not be hobbled by having entire regions with less factory slots than a single highsec station and other indefensible crippling disadvantages. that will create much more vibrant gameplay in nullsec as there becomes more to do than rat and kill ratters, and take ratting and moon mining space.
If hisec industry is perceived as risk free and taking so much profit from nullsec then why not gank the afk freighters that are feeding the cycle you describe for risk free industry. The vibrant gameplay you describe as going to nullsec will be at the expense of the other areas. Will you ever transport goods into and out of null when you can just produce and sell them in situ? The gameplay comes from the need to move things around, to gather resources from disparate sources, from having to either defend your resources in null or outperform your competitors in hisec.allowing everything to be done better in null will destroy that dynamic. The large alliances in null will simply get even more rich and even more insular. Will you even bother with burn Jita when you can outperform the trade hubs locally?
The industrial zones you describe in null will kill hisec dead. How could hisec ever compete with nullsec buffed industrial zones? Destroying the dynamic between the security sectiors in this way can only be harmful to the game.
I believe that the S&I changes proposed are needed and look forward to them. I think they will benefit null as much if not more than hisec/losec already. I completely disagree that null needs S&I buffs on top of this. Hisec should remain the S&I centre to encourage the movement of materials players and goods. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
383
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 16:41:00 -
[34] - Quote
Kadl wrote: After your massive wall of text you still missed the original point. Urziel99 never claimed that null sec industry was better than high sec. He claimed that many other activities were. The point of the argument is to ask why null sec must also be better in industry if it has so many other good activities. I think it is a valid question, although I am feeling a bit undecided about the answer right now. For me it is obvious that null sec industry should be improved. But should null sec be better at everything? Should null sec be so much better at S&I that only they can produce many items for a profit? Perhaps the answer is yes, but you do not make a convincing argument when you ignore the issues.
This is my point but put much more succint.
Many activities are already much more profitable in null and rightly so, however each area *needs* something that it is 'best' at to keep the areas competitive and provide reason to move between them. If null is buffed to be so much better at everything then hisec turns into a waiting room for new players marking time until they meet whichever alliances pre-requisites and losec becomes nothing more than a waypoint on the way to said chosen alliance.
rather than buff null in S&I I would actually leave hisec as the S&I powerhouse and buff losec in say moon goo reactions to give losec a reason to exist. As weaselior pointed out this is a game, and each area of thre game serves different playstyles. These should always have a place to exist otherwise you start to exclude groups of players. This can only be bad for the game. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
383
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 16:57:00 -
[35] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:they're always, always, always ignoring effort. once you factor in effort the argument evaporates like a fart in the wind.
So factoring in effort...boosting S&I in nullsec will reduce the effort involved as transport (which as you say isn't free) suddenly becomes a whole lot simpler, cheaper and...less effort. So more reward for less effort. Seems somewhat wrong don't you think?
Another question. Why should anyone believe that the head of goonswarm economic warfare has anything but goons economic dominance in mind? The good of the game is most definitely not served by pushing the best of everything into one area controlled by very few groups. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
383
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 17:10:00 -
[36] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:
no and i don't think you really "get" how balance works
I understand balance perfectly well, two sides in equilibrium upon a fulcrum...kind of like hisec and nullsec with losec as the fulcrum. Your argument that null should be better for everything allows for absolutely no balance. I'm not arguing that null should not be viable for S&I, I am however arguing and will continue to argue that it should absolutely not be better at everything in the interest of balance and balanced gameplay.
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Another question. Why should anyone believe that the head of goonswarm economic warfare has anything but goons economic dominance in mind? The good of the game is most definitely not served by pushing the best of everything into one area controlled by very few groups.
you should believe because our arguments are self-evidently correct and have been unrefuted in the years that we've been making them. they stand on their own merit and their blinding correctness, which stands in sharp contrast to the counterarguments of "but...goons!"[/quote]
Clearly they are not 'self-evidently' correct otherwise people would not question them. Please explain clearly how it is blindingly correct that one section of the game should have every advantage at the expense of every other area? Also explain how this is balanced whilst you do so.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
383
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 17:20:00 -
[37] - Quote
Aryth wrote:At some point you just have to realize you are an inferior player in a very deep game.
If those who play the game as hisec S&I folks are so inferior...why the complaints that they make so much money by doing what they do better than others?
The changes in S&I are long overdue and welcome, but improving it in null beyond the ability to perform S&I in hisec? That is just wrong. Buffing one area because players in another area can perform that career better? Completely wrong.
I'd like lots of moon goo but I have to source that from null one way or another. Fine, that's good for the game. Why then should null not have to source the best in S&I from another area? |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
383
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 17:32:00 -
[38] - Quote
Dramaticus wrote:The balance is that there is risk in null-sec while there is none in high-sec.
risk is not the be all and end all. It is simply something requiring effort to manage (or the acceptance of the losses with respect to the expected gains). Deep inside goon territory just how much risk is there in reality? You will be able to cover the gates into systems and have advance warning of intruders. No intruders? Then move your goods around with impunity.
Am I expected to believe that fuel for your control towers costs you a fortune? Surely with the highest output of PI resources and the ice fields you can lock down and mine out this shouldn't be a problem? When you have unlimited slots per station you will also have far fewer stations to defend if you choose so.
If I flew to goons null I would be at grave risk for not being blue to you, if I were blue? Suddenly a huge chunk of that risk is mitigated. I'm not complaining about this as you have carved out and controlled this space, but to plead poverty based on risk vs reward? If it was so hard there how do you control so much space? How do you afford it?
The risk vs reward idea doesn't fly in this case. Reducing the effort required to make even more isk in null is simply absurd and I very much hope that doesn't happen (and that is *all* of null, not an anti-goons statement). |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
384
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 18:51:00 -
[39] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: Am I expected to believe that fuel for your control towers costs you a fortune? Surely with the highest output of PI resources and the ice fields you can lock down and mine out this shouldn't be a problem? When you have unlimited slots per station you will also have far fewer stations to defend if you choose so.
i also can't pass up the opportunity to quote a highsec pubbie unironically arguing "the things i mine myself are free"
Where did I say they were free? I said you can gather the materials from PI (i.e. make the effort to do so...not 'free'). Locking down an ice filed to mine it out? Takes effort to hold the system and effort to mine the field whilst killing the rats that show up. Again not 'free'
I raised the question as to why you don't produce them yourself. I make fuel blocks and know it isn't that difficult. If you have the goods to hand and the build slots available (which you may or may not have) then it is a simple process. After the summer changes you will have unlimited build slots. I would be very surprised if you didn't make the absolute best use of that change.
Also please explain the term 'pubbie' as if it is an insult I'd at least like to know exactly how it is supposed to be |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
384
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 19:37:00 -
[40] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh, you keep positing that someone is saying nulsec should be better at everything. Then going on how that isn't balanced.
As it stands now, nulsec is absolute crap for industry.
...
Is mining worth it in nulsec? Sure. ABCs and Dark Glitter litter nulsec. We could easily crush all demand in hisec for if we could safely harvest even a fraction of what nulsec could provide. But because of the risk, costs, and immense effort of moving it all from nulsec, it will never happen.
Balance isn't about having item X in region A and item Y in region B, and then saying "Let there be balance!" Its about effort/risk vs reward.
You want to throw PvE into the balance equation? Okay. Just look at the isk generated by running level 4 missions. It is competitive with PvE in nulsec and has far less risk. Where do you think all those blinged-out navy faction battleships come from?
What about carrier ratting? No, you can't do it in hisec. But those that do it in nul are taking greater risks. Every blops pilot in the game wants to hotdrop a ratting carrier. The carrier pilot's reward for the greater risk is greater income. Balance is maintained. You want lower risk, you get lower income. Hell, it isn't even any more effort than ratting in a T1 BS. Its a pure risk vs reward issue.
...
Hisec is great for everything that can be done there, and it is very low risk. Nulsec is much higher risk. So, yes, whatever you can do out in nulsec should generate a proportionately higher return on investment compared to hisec.
And now, you will have unlimited factory slots. Holy crap. UNLIMITED! The only thing you have to worry about is is it worth it to pay the fee in a congested system, put up a POS and pay a flat rate per hour, or go to a less crowded station? Oh, that's right! No more faction standings requirement! And look at how many factory slots you have!
In nulsec, we don't have that option. We can put one station in a system and we have to choose which type. Do we want a refinery, a factory, an office station, or a research station? We get to choose one and only one, and then we are stuck with it forever.
...
How much isk and effort did anyone in hisec have to spend to enjoy the perfect refineries with sub-par skills, level 4 missions, multiple stations per system with hundreds of manufacturing and research slots and dozens of offices in almost every system, gate guns, station guns, faction police, no bombs, no bubbles, and the ultimate mother-lode of all protection services, CONCORD?
...
If you want to live in hisec, fine. I can't stop you. But the next time you want to cry about how hisec is getting nerfed and how unbalanced the game is becoming towards nulsec, look at what you have, then look at what we have, and then ask yourself what have I done to deserve all this absolutely awesome space?
Thanks for the detailed reply which clarifies many things for me. I have already stated that if nulsec industry is not viable it should be made so and I have no issue with that. I have on many occasions posted against the ability to farm any kind of mission, it annoys me that people can do so and the eve survival can even exist. What is the point of a mission where you can go AFK?
The station issue of single type per system I didn't know about, I was under the impression that the moons within the system could provide whichever service was required by placing online refineries, labs, reactors, whatevers. That is an issue with station viability in null rather than an advantage that hisec has. It is my understanding that with the new POS S&I system the stations in every system will have the same capabilities and no slot limits upon them. This will benefit all systems equally.
In terms of refining I have no argument with the skill changes ( and I think it was probably 1 month to 6 weeks to get the skills for perfect refining plus about 2 months grinding standings). It made no sense for the refining skills to have little value above a certain level.
As for CONCORD they are a punishment service not a protection. If someone wants to kill you in hisec they just bring enough gank fit ship to do the required damage in the required time. Concord cannot stop them, only destroy them afterwards by which time it is too late for the target. If my understanding is incorrect here please do explain why.
I live in hisec because it suits me to do so for now. If my available time for the game drops then I will simply adapt my skills and activities to compensate. Most of my goods however come from regular jaunts to losec and I have no aversion to risk or effort. Missions bore me, station trading would bore me to tears. I am learning to carry out every career within Eve as and when the opportunity arises. I welcome the S&I changes as it gives me something new to learn and adapt to. I certainly don't cry about hisec being nerfed since I simply look for the opportunities that any change brings for me in my current position and make the best of it. Ultimately whether null has an S&I buff or not will not affect me as I will simply work around any changes.
I raised the question as to *why* null should be better for everything and this i still a valid question. I have not been swayed by the comments and responses here that this is a good thing for the game. Once someone moves to null sec and can enjoy every career there for greater reward why would they ever return to the other areas of space? They would have no need or reason. Hisec folks are already treated as second class citizens by many people. This is not a good way to persuade people to stay in the game after trial. I would much prefer there to be actual reasons to use each area of space for its particular advantage, and likewise there to be reasons for people to travel between the regions. |
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
384
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 21:04:00 -
[41] - Quote
Nah, the best bit is finding out what the new changes will be, the rest is banter and waffle |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
384
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 22:12:00 -
[42] - Quote
That I do agree entirely on... |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
384
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 22:17:00 -
[43] - Quote
that'll be funny actually..so many hints about what's to come and so much speculation...can't wait :D |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
386
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 09:49:00 -
[44] - Quote
skim read back across the last posts and two things come out. One is that hisec has every advantage for S&I. I still don't believe that since to produce many goods I need materials or products that can only be sourced from low/null. Choose to no longer supply those and you choke hisec industry. Hand in hand with this is 'level the playing field' in S&I.
Fine, I have no problem with nullsec stations being opened up ( just with nullsec *always* having to be better for every area) to allow more slots etc...in return how about giving hisec and WH's moon goo? That'll level the manufacturing capabilities of all the areas in terms of materials available. Simply have moons in hisec less profitable as with the other materials. of course the moons in WH should then be super profitable.
It was my understanding that having less mexallon in null and no moon goo in hi was intended to increase player and goods mobility. Buffing null industry (not simply opening it up on an even basis) would surely go against this as null has everything available locally where the other areas do not, setting aside the obvious retorts about how hard it is to acquire resources in null. The point is that null will be the only self contained area capable of producing everything in game. To level the playing field every area would have to have everything accessible.
The game should either keep the principle of player and goods mobility which I would prefer, more people moving around means more interaction. Different security areas being better (or the only) option for certain goods or services makes for a more diverse setting.
Otherwise level the playing field by making everything available everywhere, with amounts available and effort required to gather those amounts being scaled based upon security area. This would be the only way to argue that risk vs reward is truly in play.
Somebody a while back pointed out that they wanted to do S&I in null rather than use the current hisec alt. If this was a case of wanting to do S&I as something else to do in the game then what is the issue with having a hisec alt to do this? The drive to move S&I into null is for ease of production and improved profit in nullsec otherwise why push so hard for the change?
The strength of Eve as a game is the diversity of playstyles and areas, a push to 'encourage' players to move to null as they progress is artificial and stifling in my opinion.. I would argue that more and stronger differences between the security areas would be much better.
I would also quite like to see something like the border zones between losec and null becoming a warzone between null and empire (kind of extended faction war I guess but pitting empire fleet backed capsuleers against null capsuleer fleets. This would be more likely to entice hisec players to venture to null for combat and would introduce many new players to those areas. How achievable this would be I'm not sure but giving people the choice to participate in null combat from hisec bases would be more likely to encourage people to move down than forcing them by slowly crippling the economy of the higher security system
A bit rambling...but whatever...i'm bored in work :D
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
386
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 09:51:00 -
[45] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Zappity wrote:Since we're focusing on risk vs reward I'm assuming wormhole industry is going to be absolutely fantastic.
Looking forward to the figures dev blog. As you mention it... since CONCORD is not able to provide direct chat access in W-space, how is the SCC or any other NPC corp (assuming that the fees for jobs are paid to these NPC entities) supposed to collect the fees from W-space POS? Of course, it's just a game and logic only goes so far; but how could the SCC reach W-space to collect fees when it's mighty mother company CONCORD cannot access W-space? I don't really care to be honest. Just a balancing cost. I'd love to see J-space bonused for T3 and booster production and lowsec for subcaps and T2 modules (or whatever). Some differentiation would be nice apart from cost alone.
Exactly my thinking, differentiate the regions to give people more variety and choice in activities. I would much prefer there to be strong differences between and reasons to travel to the various regions of space. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
387
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 11:11:00 -
[46] - Quote
I agree with the changes in S&I, always have. I am fine with null being viable for S&I too, never said anything otherwise and I actually thought it already was. My view and firm belief is that the game would benefit from the areas of space having different focus and resources to promote interaction between them and give players greater choice. I questioned *why* null should have the best of everything (and that isn't to say I am assuming these changes in summer will provide that).
I'm pretty much consistent in all of my posts in the various threads that more choice is a good thing, player mobility is an even better thing, and changes to the game that promote wither and or both of these are very definitely good things.
The casual player base use hisec because it suits the amount of time they can dedicate to the game. The activities they perform are not exclusive in the sense that anybody in hisec can do them. The hisec player has no advantage over the losec or nullsec player here as those from other areas can more likely afford an alt in hisec to compete with the dedicated hisec players (what with the higher reward that comes from living in lower sec regions).
Hisec should have industry as its focus, this makes sense as stability breeds business. losec should be better for moon mining and reactions maybe, null for raw resource amounts, ratting, exploration (to a degree) and WH's for gas and T3. This would give people more choice about where they play, more reason to move system to system, better rewards for actually interacting with more systems (or people from them). A player group with fingers in all regions would have the most advantages by virtue of being divers rather than by heavily controlling a large region of on security level. If you truly want a level playing field then make all resources available in all areas but to varying degrees to maintain a good reaason to have a presence in each region.
I object to one area of the player base being defined as second class or somehow worse players because they don't live in null. In the risk vs reward scenario the hisec traders who are making billions are maximising the risk reward balance in their favour and doing so in a way that *anyone* can compete if they take the time to build their capital. The condesnding view and patronization of those who choose to play in hisec is only bad for the game as it will turn people off to Eve. Existing players may well leave (yet to be seen but anecdotally likely), new players will be put off.
As for who plays the game better how can that be measured? By PvP skills? How can they be compared to station trader skills? Or exploration skills? Or how do you define how well a player does in Eve who's goal is to plex their account and not pay subscription themselves?
For a full and vibrant game economy every area should have an edge in something, a reason to exist and be frequented.
If we are going to open up S&I in null beacause it isn't viable there, then we should open up moon goo and gas in hisec, moon goo in WH's too at the appropriate reward to risk level. That will truly level the paying field. Otherwise the clear and meaningful differences between the security regions should be maintained. and enhanced to encourage players to move, to train for new skills, to try new careers. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
387
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 12:08:00 -
[47] - Quote
King Fu Hostile wrote:Hisec has the edge over every other area- safety.
Your point seems to be that it's ok for people being forced to hisec, but it's somehow wrong for making industry viable outside hisec.
There are currently no financial rewards for living in lower security regions.
I said the opposite, that people should have incentive to use *every* region for different reasons. I specifically stated I was fine for industry to made viable in null as I already thought it was. I also always argue against players being forced into anything whether by means of restrictions or economic coercion .
In my view a player or group of players who can operate in many regions should have an advantage over players or groups who are concentrated into one region only. Co-operation should bring rewards alongside diverse capabilities.
To be clear my home is in hi sec for convenience and safety there is a matter of using cheap fits and carrying low value of goods, otherwise you must take the correct precautions to avoid being killed. That is simply a case of adapting to the area you live in and applies to any region of space. I am also optimizing my activities to provide me with an income to support future ventures. Again this applies in any region, just with different activities being more or less profitable. I could choose to rent a moon or system in null for billions which by definition means the return on investment must be billions more to be a viable proposition. However I currently prefer my hisec/losec activities but in all likelihood I'll migrate to WH's at some point.
I have no prejudice for or against any area in space, I want *all* regions to be mutually viable for different reasons. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
388
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 15:33:00 -
[48] - Quote
I'm guessing that POS bonuses changing will improve the POS speed for copying and production to offset the increased cost of running one compared to just using stations...unless this is a cunning plan to stop people using POS's whilst the code is replaced. I look forward to playing around with a POS though...even if I just tear it down after a month it'll be worth the learning, |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
389
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 08:44:00 -
[49] - Quote
There seem to be 3 groups in this discussion, hisec players who at least have a strong expectation that they will lose out in summer, the null folks who are fighting for this change and will most likely benefit from it, and those in the middle who will wait and see what the changes bring then adapt to them and/or work around them.
In terms of CSM meetings it seems that null sec regions are well represented, who represented hisec and losec interests with regards to these changes?. Surely those people should now be explaining the rationale behind these changes to address the lack of information we have at the moment. Obviously we need to see what the rest of the blogs bring, but allowing such rampant speculation without some kind of balancing input is only bad. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
389
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 13:21:00 -
[50] - Quote
Could someone clarify for me why there are so few copy/invention/mfg slots in null? I thought the labs and mfg arrays on POS provided these? |
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
390
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:22:00 -
[51] - Quote
Thanks for the replies, so POS were a viable option but at cost and risk of destruction. Isn't that the risk/reward balance in action though? I thought POS's had bonuses in null compared to lo (and obviously you can't even use many of the modules in high).
In terms of renting moons I assume this is via a POS located at the moon. I'm guessing the renting systems are pretty deep inside whichever null alliance owns them to be safe? |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
390
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 14:42:00 -
[52] - Quote
Querns wrote: You have some strange ideas about how nullsec works. Nothing in this post is a thing.
I only have ideas based on the discussions here and the research via google etc. That's why I'm asking questions now, At some point I'll need to use null one way or another and I'd like to understand it better before I do. The answers given also put other discussions in a better context. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
391
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:30:00 -
[53] - Quote
it'll certainly be interesting to see how this plays out, my guess is there will be what I previously jokingly called the 'Laziness Event Horizon' about 4-5 jumps out from the trade hubs where the extra cost will balance against the intrinsic laziness in people who don't want to travel further. I toyed with calling it the 'Brown ring of Arsedness' but the thought of that being quite a mouthful put me off my lunch.
The sucking sound will be the souls leaving the bodies of those who choose to move to null of course ...
I definitely look forward to the changes as it gives me a whole order of magnitude more stuff to learn. Whether I think they are right or wrong (from my perspective of course) or I agree with the push to move people to null is entirely separate to that. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
414
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 01:54:00 -
[54] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Petrified wrote:I am very, very curious what the in-game reason will be for some third party taxation of research jobs run by a corporation in a POS. Are we paying for researchers to research for us (in which case, do we need research skills? )? The reason would have to be consistent across Empire, Null Sec, and Wormhole space. Do we need to supply researchers for the POS? Apart from that... Could you please make POS inventories truly unified? As in: Materials in Mobile lab 1 can be used by Mobile lab 2 and if that Assembly array is short Tritanium it can pull it from Mobile Lab 3 because the inventory is unified? This would simplify POS industrial management considerably. Think about it as a line cost more than a 'tax'. Since the money is vanishing to thin air, not going to an entity. So doing jobs actually costs isk. you have to pay 'workers', buy materials, etc. The more congested the facility is, the more it costs to add an extra 'worker'. Once you put it in that kind of mindset, it stops being unreasonable that a POS has to pay costs also.
Research is one of the most labour intensive things you can do, most of the work would be done by lab techs running reactions, producing reports on results, rerunning reactions to get correlated results and repeatable processes etc etc. It isn't unreasonable to model this work as a cost when people run up shitloads more jobs. Likewise with manufacturing as output is scaled up so are support costs. I have no problem with these changes.
I'm still not supportive of null being buffed to be better in every way. It makes for a very 'nilla choice. make profit? move to null. Scratch a living as you don't have time to devote to worshipping the overblown egos of the few in charge? Tough. That may be a bit tongue in cheek but the point stands. It simply doesn't make sense that the best industry would be in the most chaotic and volatile regions. I still believe that s more people are forced to null things will become much more dull. Right now if I need to move something I use cheap and cheerful tech 1 haulers. Things get more dangerous? I'll fly the BR I trained for and rarely even be seen. Need moon goo? someone needs to move it to high sec. In future? no need just build inside the secure null bubbles of sov.
I would much rather see the controlled sections of null that have been stable for a long time start to have more NPC stations set up. after all these companies would want profit, therefore would move into the new markets. By this means the number of factory/research/copy lines would increase in null which is the point of the changes according to those who live in null. If industry is to be viable in null let it at least be on a level playing field. As systems become more populated with NPC stations the region becomes more stable, starts having mission agents etc etc. Only it is sov controlled, not concord controlled. Pockets of sov controlled hisec start to appear in null which would directly model such expansion as in America into the wild west that we are told null is ( or at least should be).
I cannot see how moving anything and everything of increased value into one section of space can be good. Having read the arguments put forward I can see the reasons why null sec needs more industry capability but this should come through NPC stations being built at planets alongside the player owned POS etc. This would then push areas of null into competitive states with hisec/losec but would have the risk/reward advantage of having more resources available (in some cases resources that hisec simply does not have which I would also change). Pos's would still be viable in the same way as in hisec to increase availability of slots etc but would again be more advantageous than in hi/losec as they are already bonused for null operation.
In short I would much rather change to model the whole of industry in every sec status region but with resources available on a risk/reward basis as we currently have. That way in hisec you need to work harder/smarter/ for your money but can still compete if you are a skilled S&I bod. Losec would be the fulcrum of the balance. Reasonable resources but with the risk that comes with it. Losec would be the best returns on resources if you control space well enough to provide security for the region. The more secure the region (i.e. the longer it is held and is below some measurable level of risk) the more NPC's come and build stations. Perhaps they should be invited in by the SOV owners so that they get a say in the services provided and where. You own the region? you get to ick and choose who does business with you. Take control of the region? you get to tell the corps there to change services if you choose.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
415
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 17:58:00 -
[55] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote: WTF is that logic. My POS uses Drones and Robots, they get fueled and provided with energy by the tower. I already pay for that with POS Fuel. Now what?
This is as stupid as the the 4.99 for watching the recorded CCP videos on Twitch, that CCP introduced yesterday afternoon.
We already know ships have crews, stations are almost certain to have them too. Doesn't matter anyway, it's its just an additional cost however you rationalize it. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
418
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 07:15:00 -
[56] - Quote
Petrified wrote: - I've spent a decent amount of time training research skills... why would I hire researchers who are not present on the predominately auto-mated POS?
The professor at my old Uni spent a long time becoming such, why then would he need a good chunk of the material science faculty to help research and develop graphene? Your character is effectively the lead researcher but there is no way you would have the time to run all the experiments, gather all results, run all analysis, re-reun everything again , refine processes and reactions, rerun yet again...
I'm fine with the idea of needing research assistance since it makes absolute sense that you would. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
418
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 08:57:00 -
[57] - Quote
Actually rather than endless lines i would have preferred just the opening up of more moons for pos. I would also prefer that regions of null that have been under one sov control for a length of time gained npc stations to reflect the stabilty provided by the sov. This would have given more research etc lines in sov and made s&i viable. Null absolutely does not need more buffs. Of all things s&i should be a level playing field to my mind. Null already has better resources available to exploit the increased resources they have. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
420
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 19:09:00 -
[58] - Quote
What concerns me is that null is increasingly boosted and given the best of everything. Eve drew me in because of the varied choices, the chance to form industry in hisec, the risk of losec, the lure of nullsec. Pushing the best of everything to null simply leaves older players no choice but to go there or be left out in the cold and in my view that simply destroys the variety that set Eve apart. If you tell those who can't invest the time needed to live in nullsec that they are second class and somehow less important than those who PvP more predominantly then the game will lose nmany players eventually.
Balance needs to be across areas and careers available as well as by risk/reward. Null has a logistics problem for S&I and low end minerals? Good, that means effort is required to build stuff there just as it is in hisec to gather up and use moon goo etc for T2 production. Points have been made about the difficulties because of low number of slots on outposts and I'll take those at face value as I cannot comment on them and am glad of the extra information. I would rather the stable regions have gained NPC stations though, and then had them mothball over periods of instability. This would have benefited those who controlled a region for longer and allowed for more expanded S&I without giving extra benefits to the most resource rich regions.
Keep marginalizing hisec and pushing out casual players and Eve will suffer. Each area should have something it can be best at to give each playstyle something to aspire to and aim for. Those groups that organize across and utilize all areas would then benefit more even than one group controlling any one area. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
422
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 09:32:00 -
[59] - Quote
agree entirely with this, the there shouldn't only be consideration for rosk reward balance. Game balance is equally important in terms of all playstyles being catered for. Saying that casual playstyles are catered for in hisec industry will become akin to saying casual players can only aspire to be 2nd class industrialists if hisec is nerfed in theis area and nullsec continually buffed. We have yet to see exactly what these changes will mean but disenfranchising a large group of the playing community can only be bad.
Hisec is already low risk/reward with regards to industry, those who make large sums are either importing large amounts of high value goods from lopsec thus creating the market, or investing large sums of isk on low % return projects. So what if some players make large sum from trading or any other hisec means. This gives other hisec [players something to aspire to and is the ultimate low entry skill career. Anyone can buy and sell goods.
If people want the benefits of hisec industry stability they should use a hisec alt (as many have already said they do). The logistics problem of moving stuff to and from null is just that, a problem to be solved (which already must have been for null sector folks to be making isk from moongoo and returning hisec stuff back. Why then should this be made easier by moving S&I benefits to losec? I thought the point was that people should move across areas, run differentcareer paths in and through different regions?
Hisec needs something that casual and/or constructive ploayers can excel in, losec needs some attention to give it more allure, null already has the opportunitiy to carve out your own chunk of space along with all of the best resources excewpt for a few of the low end goods that need importing from hisec (which is a good thing).
Game balance in my opinion is more important than the risk/reward balance. The latter can be tweaked by amending resource amounts produced, loot drops, exploration drops etc. The former is far more difficult to fix if you break it.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
437
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 10:07:00 -
[60] - Quote
Aluka 7th wrote:
...stuff...
CCP, JUST please implement cheap and "easy" way to remove POSes that are littering space. Idea like hacking POSes that are (only) anchored for more then 30 days comes in mind!
Fly unsafe!
I liked a guys idea a while ago that offlined POS over a certain length of time get rogue droned and turned into hives. This allowed for players to then blow them up for salvage/the moon slot without CONCORD interference |
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
475
|
Posted - 2014.05.13 06:43:00 -
[61] - Quote
Dingoo Ridgeback wrote:I'm looking forward to the industry changes but one thing keeps bugging me; I'm using POS for T2 manufacturing and that means I have to stick around to manualy move materials between various modules (like component and equipment assembly arrays). The remote job installing is no good since the more complex assembly arrays (like equipment, drone or ship) cannot take materials from component assembly array or corporate hangar (which wouldn't help anyway, because the goods from component assembly array cannot be delivered to corp hangar). The same thing happens when you run out of material in one of the modules but you still have plenty in the other - once again you have to travel to your POS just to move stuff around.
Will this be addressed in some way? I haven't realy found an answer to that but I sure hope it will. Right now I can manufacture T2 components remotely but then I still have to warp to my POS to move them to different module in the same POS. That kinda beats all the benefits of remote job management and I don't know why since all the materials are at the POS anyway. Thanks
Maybe an alt sat in or near the POS would be a good comprimise for now, with the appropriate roles of course? Looks liker I have to wait until July to play with POS but I'd rather that than them be wrecked by a rushed release
|
|
|
|