|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
92
   |
Posted - 2015.04.15 22:05:47 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:These changes are intended to make Nullsec more self sufficient then it is currently. We continue to believe that no area of space should be completely independent of any other, but there is a lot of room to make nullsec more self sufficient and improve the opportunities for zero-sec miners and industrialists.
And nothing here addresses just how much mining is the most maligned activity in the game. Mining is the entry point of industry.
The thing missing from your sov survey is why is the space valued by a player. Would you like to take a guess at how many respond "for the ores"? |
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
92
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 20:57:39 -
[2] - Quote
Querns wrote:You're also wrong about recruiting industrialists and miners. There's no need to recruit individuals who only do industry or mining because PVPers have alts that can do the job just as well.
Querns wrote:It's just that dedicated industrialists add nothing.
Querns wrote:Nullsec groups tend not to recruit miners because miners don't actively contribute to the defense of an empire.
Currently null has plenty of ore in belts. The lack of mineral supply is a problem they have created for themselves. So why Fozzie, are you giving them what amounts to welfare to a group that are already outrageously wealthy?
How does this mesh with your sov requirement that mining is integral to defense index? Will that also change to fit the players instead of the players needing to adapt? |
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
94
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 19:48:31 -
[3] - Quote
I appreciate the thought out response. I'd like to address one point.
Querns wrote:The point of ore prospecting sites is to promote density in nullsec. Allowing more players to make a living in a smaller amount of space lets more people enjoy nullsec, and provides more food for PVPers to feast upon. It's win/win.
In terms of farms and fields, what is being offered by CCP Fozzie amounts to a Genetically Enhanced crop (Fozzie GEGäó). Less farmers and more yield. That would at face value mean less targets for the PvPers?! Additionally these targets would be within densely populated systems - reducing chance or isolated opportunities to be attacked.
Coupled with; It has been a regular posit by players that Null Sec is the end game of Eve and that players should aspire to emigrate from high-sec. Yet there is a distinct lack of recruitment for mining by null held authority. The more yield from less harvesters re-enforces this. Thus there is little welcome for miners into null. Should they remain trapped in high-sec like some ghetto?
Additionally, given the near automated player style that mining induces - out of step with the mechanics of the rest of game. Perhaps it should not be a dead-end, relegate the operation to deployable platforms and be done with a player style that has little long-term prospect. |
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
95
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 00:39:52 -
[4] - Quote
Querns wrote:Not to mention that mercoxit needs a specialized ship, with a rig that's useless for mining anything else.
It requires a specialised laser. The rig is just to increases yield. And exactly the same argument/mechanic can be attached to ice mining - so I don't see traction either way.
*========
CCP Fozzie, I am concerned that your efforts with effect Parkinson's Law.
Quote:The demand upon a resource tends to expand to match the supply of the resource.
Similar to how TiDi was only a temporary grace for lag, it would reasonable to forecast that Null-Sec players will merely increase consumption of minerals to arrive at same point now; there will always be a shortage in self-sufficiency.
Have you considered the alternative direction, and reduce the spawn rates of ore in high-sec? I would cite the precedent success behind Ice anoms. This would also link into the effort of introducing industrial costs based on population usage. Lowers spawns would see both conflict over resources and diaspora of harvesters away from trade hubs. |
|
|
| |
|