| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 28 post(s) |
Exer Toralen
Zaporozhye Sich
0
   |
Posted - 2011.11.26 19:19:00 -
[1] - Quote
Said it in another thread, but maybe CCP reads this one.
Low-sec is about piracy. Null-sec is about fight for resources/territories.
Pirates/grievers in low-sec mostly won't be bothered with building and using POCOs. Yes, pirates would get more targets to shoot, but pirating can't exist without juicy targets. And non-PvP people are already at disadvantage there due to danger from pirates and absence of null-sec class protection and resource concentration. Such players would lose more interest in low-sec, pirates would lose targets, low-sec would lose its meaning. So POCOs won't improve gameplay of low-secs.
And as concentration or resources is higher in null-sec, building POCOs in low-sec won't be as lucrative as in null-sec. So POCO builders would probably leave low-sec for null-sec.
Destroying structures/claiming resources - that's null-sec. So introducing POCOs to null-sec is probably fine, but introducing them to low-sec means replacing low-sec gameplay at least partially with null-sec's.
It is often helpful for solution analysis to consider boundary conditions. If you starting to replace NPC structures with player-owned ones in low-sec - just imagine going further, replacing NPC stations with player stations. What's that going to be? Just another null-sec. Where is low-sec idea there? |
Exer Toralen
Zaporozhye Sich
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 21:48:00 -
[2] - Quote
The point is: Every single game patch has to be improvement. But how destroyable COs and POCOs would improve low-sec play-style?
Consider only gameplay aspect. Increased taxes in hi-sec would stimulate people to move PI from hi- to low- and null-sec. Introducing another grab&hold element would add another objects to care about in null-sec. But what would it improve in low-sec?
Most people here complain about low-sec effects of destroyable COs, few actually think it would affect hi- and null-sec citizens much.
Introducing null-sec gameplay elements to low-sec is hardly an improvement. People willing to fight over stations able to leave for null-sec at any time. Forcing people to such fights in low-sec means limiting them.
To improve low-sec, you have to improve piracy as source of income (do not care about grievers). For that you have to make low-sec more lucrative to increase traffic. Or split core hi-sec into pieces putting low-sec systems between them, not just at the edge. POCOs would make low-sec actually less profitable place negatively affecting piracy as whole reason behind low-sec.
Unless CCP could explain POCOs as improvement for low-sec, they should reconsider introducing them outside of null-sec/wormhole space. |
Exer Toralen
Zaporozhye Sich
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 02:54:00 -
[3] - Quote
Don't mind Jack. He seems to be trolling. |
Exer Toralen
Zaporozhye Sich
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 13:02:00 -
[4] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:I've been on the receiving end of several supercap hotdrops.
And that makes my point invalid... how?
If you could justify POCOs as low-sec attractiveness improvement - lay down your arguments. Braggery is irrelevant. |
Exer Toralen
Zaporozhye Sich
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 15:01:00 -
[5] - Quote
Quote:If you can control/secure a lowsec system, now you can profit from it. Simple as that.
Ok. That's still replacement of low-sec gameplay with null-sec one, but let's discuss it.
You do not get profit from POCOs just by controlling system. You get it from other people visiting your POCOs. And they do that because a) it is profitable for them to use your POCOs or b) they do not have other choice.
Right now people in low-sec engage in PI activity because they just can. It is easy to spend 15 minutes a day to get some profit on the side if you use planets in your home system or 1-2 jumps away tops. And it costs like nothing in NPC CO taxes. With destroyable COs you get:
1) more jumps to do as not all planets are going to have POCOs
2) higher taxes
As a result, low-sec PI is going to become less interesting than it is now.
About not having choice. As I see it, people engage in PI because of:
1) direct profit from selling goods
2) indirect profit from fueling their own POSes with self-made cheap and close fuel
3) T2/T3 manufacturing of theirs requiring PI goods
POCOs are going to make PI less profitable and some PIers would either switch to other activities or leave low-sec. People owning (and protecting) POSes should be able to own and protect their own POCOs, though it is going to be more annoying for them. T2/T3 manufacturers are either able to substitute self-made PI goods with market-obtainable or already use null-sec as base because of higher resource concentration there.
Do not see steady flow of POCO customers here either.
Not saying POCOs are going to destroy low-sec PI completely. Can't predict how people would adapt. But such change would decrease low-sec PI attractiveness compared to current one. |
Exer Toralen
Zaporozhye Sich
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 17:26:00 -
[6] - Quote
You have different playgrounds: high-, low- and null-sec. People start in high-sec so have to be inclined to leave for other zones. Incentives for that are profit and different gameplay. Zones with higher profit must be more difficult. Else everyone would leave high-sec for null-sec. So we do have:
High-sec: base profit, relative safety.
Low-sec: higher profit, no CONCORD.
Null-sec: highest profit, no CONCORD, not every system has stations you can use, people have to protect their assets, higher organization level required to survive.
Low-sec = no law = free PvP. Free PvP is:
a) "fair" fights just to prove you are better than the other guy (duels)
b) ability to kill everything inferior to you on sight just because you can (not always, but usually just griefing)
c) ability to shoot juicy targets to rob them and earn money (piracy)
Duels are minority and do not define low-sec. Griefers do not need anything other than some way to blow things and would function anywhere. That's why I'm naming piracy the only low-sec proprietary gameplay. Null-sec is more about military operations, "grab & hold" gameplay, while low-sec is "hit & run".
Here we come to two things:
1. To run successful extortion business you must have someone to extort. Extorting another extorter just won't work - there is no source of income. So piracy won't function by itself, it needs isk-generating players in low-sec. The more you drive them away from low-sec - the less interesting the defining low-sec's gameplay would be, the less populated low-sec is going to become.
2. Different playgrounds with different gameplays should have about same level of profit per month. That way willing people would simply leave starting hi-sec for playgrounds with most appealing gameplay.
Yes, there is inequity in null-sec where some have tech moons and other only have Call To Arms to defend those moons. But general level of income in null-sec is higher than in low-sec. That's why we have low-populated low-sec same time as having massive lag-causing battles in null-sec. Make low-sec as lucrative as null-sec and people would spread evenly, some leaving organized null-sec warfare for organized low-sec crime. But make low-sec less attractive and we get (at boundary condition) empty systems with only transports passing by on their way between null-sec and hi-sec.
So every change to low-sec has to improve financial attractiveness of this zone unless you are going to abandon it. And POCOs would just make low-sec's gameplay look more like null-sec's and decrease low-sec PI's attractiveness, both leading to degradation of low-sec as unique playground. |
Exer Toralen
Zaporozhye Sich
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 18:26:00 -
[7] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:Actually, the thing that defines lowsec, mechanics-wise, is accesibility.
And destroyable COs would make it less accessable in terms of PI because absence of CO limits launch choices and not every planet is going to have CO. That's even if every POCO is going to be accessable by everyone.
Sure, that's not decisive degradation, but each one pushes low-sec further into being profitless and lifeless. |
Exer Toralen
Zaporozhye Sich
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 18:35:00 -
[8] - Quote
I have counteroffer for CCP. Don't make COs destroyable. Let people build some destroyable installation per system to increase PI profit (resource concentration/powergrid/CPU/provides remote CO and launch management/something else). Autoincrease CO taxes in such systems by some factor (have to be balanced with utility installation provides to be attractive for PIers). Give share of those taxes to owner of such installation.
That would improve profit for PIers and provide profit for installation owner without degrading existing gameplay. As if there is no such installation - numbers simply revert to current state. |
Exer Toralen
Zaporozhye Sich
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 09:09:00 -
[9] - Quote
/signed for removal |
Exer Toralen
Zaporozhye Sich
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 10:41:00 -
[10] - Quote
1. PI resources in low-sec replenish too slow for any planet with average concentration to be used effectively by more than 1-2 persons. And only limited resource types have high concentration in low-sec.
2. For effective PI you have to use at least 4 planets per person.
3. Current low-sec population is low.
That's simple strategy. If you have few defenders and a lot of things to defend, you are going to fail no matter how active attackers are going to be. Key to victory is concentration. And while attackers would surely be able to concentrate their forces, defenders are going to be spread too thin. |
Exer Toralen
Zaporozhye Sich
7
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 11:31:00 -
[11] - Quote
ZaBob wrote:That doesn't seem right. I haven't had a chance to break it down yet, and compare with the stated rates, but I will as soon as I get a chance.
Can't find right post at the moment. But taxes are different because:
1) they increased tax rate as promised
2) they set new hard-coded taxable prices for PI goods based on market state on November, 11 or something. P3 (robotics and such) = 70k, p2 (enriched uranium and such) = 9k, P1 (precious metals and such) = 500 (or 700?), etc.
So 17% tax at Interbus COs mean actual 17-20% of tax in PI pre-Crucible market prices. Considering you have to lift raw resources/P1 from resource planets and put them onto factory planet, that basically means paying about 50-60% of pre-Crucible market value of your resulting PI goods in taxes. |
Exer Toralen
Zaporozhye Sich
7
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 11:31:00 -
[12] - Quote
Removed. Second post was made by mistake. |
Exer Toralen
Zaporozhye Sich
7
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 16:03:00 -
[13] - Quote
Ahh, here is right link:
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/CustomsOffice
Check "Taxation" under "Managing a Customs Office" for taxing details. |
| |
|