EVE Search - Factional Warfare = Meh for industrialists

All Channels

Market Discussions

Factional Warfare = Meh for industrialists

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Suicidal Strangeone Minmatar AMC Holdings Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium	Posted - 2008.05.16 01:27:00 - [1] Well I don't know about you guys but so far the next big update is looking like a pretty story happening in some other game from an industrialists point of view. Lets look at it from an industrialists point of view: - FW: Le'me get this straight - I pretty much have to give up research and invention if I want to experience factional warfare? Screw that, industrial progression remains high sec -> 0.0. - new faction cruisers: mission runner stuff - new things to trade but that's about it (and only 4 of em) - new amarr T1 frigate - ok it only took em 5 years to find the lost amarr astrometrics frigate. True this is something new to build... a single new T1 frigate... So overall this looks like it won't have anything much for the market except the secondary effects of shifting supply needs of the pvp'ers.
Letrange Minmatar Chaosstorm Corporation Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium	Posted - 2008.05.16 01:29:00 - [2] Man I hate the way this thing defaults your char to the wrong one from time to time (Suicidal's main)
Kwint Sommer Lothian Quay Industries	Posted - 2008.05.16 01:33:00 - [3] Thanks we needed two threads on this. Purchasing and Shipping Moon Minerals
Ortos Abyssus Incendia THORN Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.16 05:35:00 - [4] Edited by: Ortos on 16/05/2008 05:36:07 More PVP then ever before. I dont see how people can complain. Edit: More PVP = more people dying = increased demand of items = more pressure on industrialists = higher margins.
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.05.16 05:41:00 - [5] Originally by: Ortos Edited by: Ortos on 16/05/2008 05:36:07 More PVP then ever before. I dont see how people can complain. Edit: More PVP = more people dying = increased demand of items = more pressure on industrialists = higher margins. Pfft. That isn't the whole truth More PVP = More people dying = More insurance paid out = Increased growth of the economy = The issues we are whining about, are just becoming worse So no, it's not that simple. Just because there is a higher demand, it doesn't mean it will change anything.
ZW Dewitt	Posted - 2008.05.16 05:45:00 - [6] Industrials could use some more meth to.
Ortos Abyssus Incendia THORN Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.16 07:56:00 - [7] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Ortos Edited by: Ortos on 16/05/2008 05:36:07 More PVP then ever before. I dont see how people can complain. Edit: More PVP = more people dying = increased demand of items = more pressure on industrialists = higher margins. Pfft. That isn't the whole truth More PVP = More people dying = More insurance paid out = Increased growth of the economy = The issues we are whining about, are just becoming worse So no, it's not that simple. Just because there is a higher demand, it doesn't mean it will change anything. God, I wish insurance never existed =p All ships would probably be like 1\5'th of the price they are now then....
Won Swunglow Caldari Dead By Dawn	Posted - 2008.05.16 08:29:00 - [8] War is good for bussiness... Nothing else to say really
Danari Viper Squad Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.05.16 09:14:00 - [9] Anything that makes the carebears cry is win in my universe.
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.05.16 09:27:00 - [10] Originally by: Danari Anything that makes the carebears cry is win in my universe. Yet many of us carebears are in your bases, killing ur d00ds with our pvp character. So much for crying carebears
Letrange Minmatar Chaosstorm Corporation Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium	Posted - 2008.05.16 10:20:00 - [11] The point I was trying to make LaVista, is that any high sec industrialist who is part of an alliance in order to have tower access, can not join in factional warfare without loosing his tower research slots one way or the other. Either he has to leave the alliance and he's stuck using NPC slots (yea like that'll improve the situation). Or the high sec alliance looses a significant chunk of it's combat pilots and decides to close shop (mind you that might clean up a bunch of small alliances) and again he's stuck using NPC slots. For something who's apparent reason for existance is to ease the high sec population into PvP (and I would have loved to be able to use it as a tool to ease the carebears who are not philosophically opposed to PvP into it), it certainly fails on that front. The truly ironic part is those of us who've got VERY high faction standing are actually the ones LEAST likely to be able to participate in faction warfare, due to the fact that to do so would basically throw away months of grinding and faction standing raising. I wonder what Ricdic's thoughts are on the effects this is going to have on the Zzz alliance.
Cpt Fina Mutually Assured Distraction	Posted - 2008.05.16 10:21:00 - [12] Originally by: LaVista Vista More PVP = More people dying = More insurance paid out = Increased growth of the economy = The issues we are whining about, are just becoming worse The influx of money doesn't mean a growing economy.
Jacque Custeau Knights of the Minmatar Republic	Posted - 2008.05.16 10:45:00 - [13] Edited by: Jacque Custeau on 16/05/2008 10:46:22 I am an industrialist and I can't say I agree with you. We are not part of an alliance, but we do have high sec towers. I have been contemplating joining my corp with a militia. Sure this would place me in a state of war, but without capitals it is quite difficult to attack well armed large towers. As for moving supplies around, we'd use alts like everyone else does! Joining a militia by definition means you are stopping what you are doing now and signing up to fight. So don't complain about not being able to run invention jobs at the same time. Even outside the realm of militias, there was a role to be played. News items yesterday indicated that Ishukone put up buy orders for antibiotics...etc and were counting on capsuleers to fill them to help with the relief effort. It would be awesome if capsuleers could donate supplies instead of selling them, but that is what the current mechanics provide now. -------------------
Suicidal Strangeone Minmatar AMC Holdings Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium	Posted - 2008.05.16 11:04:00 - [14] Originally by: Jacque Custeau Edited by: Jacque Custeau on 16/05/2008 10:46:22 I am an industrialist and I can't say I agree with you. We are not part of an alliance, but we do have high sec towers. I have been contemplating joining my corp with a militia. Sure this would place me in a state of war, but without capitals it is quite difficult to attack well armed large towers. As for moving supplies around, we'd use alts like everyone else does! Joining a militia by definition means you are stopping what you are doing now and signing up to fight. So don't complain about not being able to run invention jobs at the same time. Even outside the realm of militias, there was a role to be played. News items yesterday indicated that Ishukone put up buy orders for antibiotics...etc and were counting on capsuleers to fill them to help with the relief effort. It would be awesome if capsuleers could donate supplies instead of selling them, but that is what the current mechanics provide now. Yep, you yourself and your small corp are not affected. But you're amongst the minority of industrialists who belong to a corporation with a high sec tower. A much larger population belongs to an alliance to get tower access. And even then you guys can't put up an other tower atm (3.92 min standing is not 5.0+) You're right that the risks to the tower are pretty low - especially since the opposing pilots won't be able to fly in your space as their standings dip below -5 with your chosen faction.
Mr Horizontal Gallente KIA Corp KIA Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.16 11:09:00 - [15] Let's hit the history books. Rome was an empire that was driven by conquest. Conquest means that people are continuously motivated, fight for a cause, think of themselves as relevant and not a number, and most importantly back themselves up with an industrial machine able to feed the war machine. No one entity illustrates this more perfectly in EVE than BOB. However, Rome is far away from being the most successful empire in history. Arguably this would have to fall into Egypt or Byzantium which both lasted nearly twice as long as Rome. In Egypt's case, Ptolemy Laos did not allow any kind of politics to be discussed, but was at the same time a benevolent ruler. Realising the people wouldn't accept this out right he instigated free education for everyone, so they could support themselves far better and understand that Egypt was to be a neutral state in terms of politics serving only to better itself. With Byzantium, they invented the Welfare State and supported their people by ensuring everyone had a minimum standard of living. In both cases, the empires survived because they were useful to their people. So the metaphoric basis of conquest driving everything in EVE doesn't actually work, because EVE isn't a single state or empire. EVE is a galaxy, and it's made of individual alliances and factions - states in their own right. Each must be allowed to define it's own path and not be coerced into doing what it doesn't feel is correct by the lowest denomination in them: the people. As such, CCP need to realise there are 3 games in EVE: PvE, PvP and Economic PvP. Each and everyone of them equally as important to each other and complimentary to each other. FW will fail as an addition to the game if it generates more PvP without providing the necessary rewards to the ePvP and more content to PvE. Each to their own and all equal. Director \| www.eve-bank.net
The Unmerciful	Posted - 2008.05.16 11:32:00 - [16] Originally by: Mr Horizontal Let's hit the history books. Rome was an empire that was driven by conquest. Conquest means that people are continuously motivated, fight for a cause, think of themselves as relevant and not a number, and most importantly back themselves up with an industrial machine able to feed the war machine. No one entity illustrates this more perfectly in EVE than BOB. However, Rome is far away from being the most successful empire in history. Arguably this would have to fall into Egypt or Byzantium which both lasted nearly twice as long as Rome. In Egypt's case, Ptolemy Laos did not allow any kind of politics to be discussed, but was at the same time a benevolent ruler. Realising the people wouldn't accept this out right he instigated free education for everyone, so they could support themselves far better and understand that Egypt was to be a neutral state in terms of politics serving only to better itself. With Byzantium, they invented the Welfare State and supported their people by ensuring everyone had a minimum standard of living. In both cases, the empires survived because they were useful to their people. So the metaphoric basis of conquest driving everything in EVE doesn't actually work, because EVE isn't a single state or empire. EVE is a galaxy, and it's made of individual alliances and factions - states in their own right. Each must be allowed to define it's own path and not be coerced into doing what it doesn't feel is correct by the lowest denomination in them: the people. As such, CCP need to realise there are 3 games in EVE: PvE, PvP and Economic PvP. Each and everyone of them equally as important to each other and complimentary to each other. FW will fail as an addition to the game if it generates more PvP without providing the necessary rewards to the ePvP and more content to PvE. Each to their own and all equal. well said!
Kwint Sommer Lothian Quay Industries	Posted - 2008.05.16 11:54:00 - [17] Originally by: Mr Horizontal Let's hit the history books. Rome was an empire that was driven by conquest. Conquest means that people are continuously motivated, fight for a cause, think of themselves as relevant and not a number, and most importantly back themselves up with an industrial machine able to feed the war machine. No one entity illustrates this more perfectly in EVE than BOB. However, Rome is far away from being the most successful empire in history. Arguably this would have to fall into Egypt or Byzantium which both lasted nearly twice as long as Rome. In Egypt's case, Ptolemy Laos did not allow any kind of politics to be discussed, but was at the same time a benevolent ruler. Realising the people wouldn't accept this out right he instigated free education for everyone, so they could support themselves far better and understand that Egypt was to be a neutral state in terms of politics serving only to better itself. With Byzantium, they invented the Welfare State and supported their people by ensuring everyone had a minimum standard of living. In both cases, the empires survived because they were useful to their people. So the metaphoric basis of conquest driving everything in EVE doesn't actually work, because EVE isn't a single state or empire. EVE is a galaxy, and it's made of individual alliances and factions - states in their own right. Each must be allowed to define it's own path and not be coerced into doing what it doesn't feel is correct by the lowest denomination in them: the people. As such, CCP need to realise there are 3 games in EVE: PvE, PvP and Economic PvP. Each and everyone of them equally as important to each other and complimentary to each other. FW will fail as an addition to the game if it generates more PvP without providing the necessary rewards to the ePvP and more content to PvE. Each to their own and all equal. Meh. Rome fell because it grew and changed, not just itself but the world. Egypt survived because it withdrew inward and dared not change and it's really ***** hard to attack and in so doing you seriously ** up the Meditteranean's grain supply... Anyways, the lesson from your examples is not that EVE needs balanced growth but rather that it needs to remain stagnant. Ironically, EVE probably will go the way of Rome. It will continue to develop into something truly unique in the MMO genre and as it does it will attract massive numbers of users. As it gets bloated with users it will both fundamentally change the genre and loose the features that originally made it so alluring. Thus it will come to be replaced by MMO's that are a product of its own inovations.... Soryy, where the hell was I going with this? Purchasing and Shipping Moon Minerals
Mr Horizontal Gallente KIA Corp KIA Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.16 13:16:00 - [18] Originally by: Kwint Sommer Soryy, where the hell was I going with this? Dunno. You were picking the bones of the actual history rather than building on the point that each of the 3 factors in gameplay (PvE, PvP and ePvP) are equally as important as eachother, and need to be boosted in equal measure as a result in any change to the game. Director \| www.eve-bank.net
Cergorach Amarr The Helix Foundation	Posted - 2008.05.16 16:28:00 - [19] I might be wrong, but Factional Warfare (FW for short) seems like an addition that will drive up consumption. FW is aimed at the folks that aren't yet into PvP (like myself), and I would imagine that it aims for folk that are running missions or are ratting at this time (and are not directly engaged in PvP). I'm sure that it will also attract folks that are already into PvP (like pirates and 0.0 alliances), but that's not the main audience for FW (as far as I understand the concept). Let's take mission runner A and mission runner B, If your half way decent you won't loose your ship often (maybe a couple of times a year due to lag, a miscalculation, or pirate ambush). Both mission runner A and B gain an X amount of reward due to mission running (2X), but the only consumption is ammo (if you use ammo that is). Now in FW one of the two mission runners is going to be defeated (shipp loss), that's a consumption of Y, and the winning side gets a reward of Z (the only significant losses I could see is drones). So you have 2X vs. Z-Y, to make FW good for the market 2X>Z-Y. To make FW interesting for folks Z>X, because if that wouldn't be the case, Mission running would be more profitable (but possibly more boring). If insurance would work (unsure, but I wouldn't be suprised if ships destroyed through FW wouldn't be reimbursed) it would almost be foolish not to insure your ship. So Y=Ship+Modules+Drones(+Implants+Clone), if the Dominix is any indication of the T1 ships being insured, InsuranceCost=0.375Ship and InsuranceReward=1.25Ship. So effectively 2X>Z-Y=0.125*Ship+Modules+Rigs+Drones(+Implants+Clone). BUT the the Ship, Modules, Rigs, Drones, and Implants aren't NPC produced items, they are player produced. So there should be a lot more demand for player produced items. The reward for the victorious player could be so high that effectively it increases the amount of isk injected in the game, but to be honest, I don't know if that's a big problem.
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2008.05.16 17:29:00 - [20] About the only thing I could possibly see FW as a big boon for the market is an increase in the number of T2 salvage parts and a small cost drive down for T2 rigs. Which might be a good thing since as it stands it's worthless to build all but 2 of them right now
Cergorach Amarr The Helix Foundation	Posted - 2008.05.16 17:43:00 - [21] Originally by: Kazzac Elentria About the only thing I could possibly see FW as a big boon for the market is an increase in the number of T2 salvage parts and a small cost drive down for T2 rigs. Which might be a good thing since as it stands it's worthless to build all but 2 of them right now But on the other hand, less mission runners/ratters means a smaller supply of T1 Rig parts, and possibly a higher demand for them...
Tergiminius	Posted - 2008.05.16 20:01:00 - [22] I suspect there's a lot of industrialists out there that will buy a pvp char or create one on a further account to participate in the war. If you're in a position to lose so much then it's highly likely you're in the position to either pay a few bil for a pvp char or setup another account with GTC and train one up from scratch to get in on the pew pew without risk of affecting your current operations. We're still a few months away from FW so thats plenty of time to get a pvp char training up.
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.05.16 20:07:00 - [23] Originally by: Tergiminius We're still a few months away from FW so thats plenty of time to get a pvp char training up. Wasn't the expansion supposed to go live in June?
Tergiminius	Posted - 2008.05.16 20:11:00 - [24] Come on you should know CCP by now means Month + random factor (+/- 1 or 2 months)
Rho'varo Diversified Operational Services	Posted - 2008.05.16 20:17:00 - [25] The Empyrean Age site says "summer", and the vast majority of the summer is after June, so I'm not going to hold my breath for June. (Not that I could hold my breath through an entire month, anyhow.) Features & Ideas: Winding Up Learning Skills
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.05.17 12:24:00 - [26] SiSi testing starts May 24th... iirc, Revelations was on SiSi less than a month before going live. If I'd be a betting man, I'd put most of my money on a July 17th launch, and some of it on a July 24th launch. __ CSM candidates - quick reference cards (NEW: spreadsheet) Or just vote for LaVista Vista or Leandro Salazar like I did.
Ortos Abyssus Incendia THORN Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.17 12:41:00 - [27] 10\10 on the quality of that post Akita. ^^
YouGotRipped Ewigkeit	Posted - 2008.05.17 15:05:00 - [28] Edited by: YouGotRipped on 17/05/2008 15:15:34 Originally by: Kwint Sommer Originally by: Mr Horizontal Let's hit the history books. However, Rome is far away from being the most successful empire in history. Arguably this would have to fall into Egypt or Byzantium which both lasted nearly twice as long as Rome. In Egypt's case, Ptolemy Laos did not allow any kind of politics to be discussed, but was at the same time a benevolent ruler. Realising the people wouldn't accept this out right he instigated free education for everyone, so they could support themselves far better and understand that Egypt was to be a neutral state in terms of politics serving only to better itself. With Byzantium, they invented the Welfare State and supported their people by ensuring everyone had a minimum standard of living. In both cases, the empires survived because they were useful to their people. Each to their own and all equal. Meh. Rome fell because it grew and changed, not just itself but the world. Egypt survived because it withdrew inward and dared not change and it's really ***** hard to attack and in so doing you seriously up the Meditteranean's grain supply... Anyways, the lesson from your examples is not that EVE needs balanced growth but rather that it needs to remain stagnant. In short: Rome was the most successful empire in history. It might not have lasted as much time as Egipt but upon its demise it left behind a variety of civilized populations that nowadays speak languages derived from Latin. If refreshing the genetic pool was not enough (successful evolutionary traits), Rome also passed technological, administrative and political breakthroughs (concrete, road building, architecture designs, machines of war, etc) that shaped the world into what it is today. The Roman empire split in two in 395 A.D. Eastern half - Byzantine Empire - capital Byzantium later renamed to Constantinopole. It fell to the turks in 1453 A.D. Probably because of its emphasis on the Welfare State instead of developing a powerful army The western half and Rome fell because of decadence, armies spread too thin, incapable ruler (Honorius lacked the age and the strength of char) - Goths plundered Rome in 410 A.D. - the beginning of the end, but civil war also played some role throughout the history of the roman empire. As to explain why Egipt lasted that long, in the earlier time you should take into account the religious system ("The Pharaoh was the head of the civil administration, the supreme warlord and the chief priest of every god in the kingdom. All offerings were made in his name and the entire priesthood acted in his stead. In fact, he was himself a divine being, considered the physical offspring of a god...") and the fact that power was passed to the first male offspring thus not leaving room for internal fights for power / civil wars. (Even so, Egipt had its share of turmoil following the death of Alexander the Great.) As for the welfare of the citizens in those early times, you really think that those pyramids were built using slave labor only? Point is, just like in Eve, someone should think on the behalf of those that don't know what's better for them. Just take a look at the amount of bull** in the features and development part of the forums. Thank god the devs know what's better for them and this game overall.
CmdDesaster Marquie-X Corp Majesta Empire	Posted - 2008.05.17 15:34:00 - [29] Originally by: YouGotRipped In short: Rome was the most successful empire in history. Even shorter: ever heard of "China"?
YouGotRipped Ewigkeit	Posted - 2008.05.17 16:09:00 - [30] Edited by: YouGotRipped on 17/05/2008 16:10:33 Originally by: CmdDesaster Edited by: CmdDesaster on 17/05/2008 15:36:25 Originally by: YouGotRipped In short: Rome was the most successful empire in history. Even shorter: ever heard of "China"? edit: just for the record - the end of the west-roman empire is dated at 1815 when members of the Vienna Congress burried the "Holy roman Empire of german nation" (aka "1st Reich"). Doesn't matter, 'cause China's still standing and therefore pwns 'em all. Yes, China's most notable contribution to the world was birth control. Ever heard of the British Empire?

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.