These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

Does expensive moons give reason to fight ?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
JitaPriceChecker2
Doomheim
#1 - 2012-05-23 14:46:02 UTC
All i can see they give reason to NAP.
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2012-05-23 14:48:30 UTC
the problem is not that tech moons provide such a great income

the problem is that a major part of all tech moons is clustered in the north
Hicksimus
Torgue
#3 - 2012-05-23 14:50:26 UTC
Gilbaron wrote:
the problem is not that tech moons provide such a great income

the problem is that a major part of all tech moons is clustered in the north



Yeah CCP screwed up, I think they should have just put them all in one system.

Recruitment Officer: What type of a pilot are you? Me: I've been described as a Ray Charles with Parkinsons and a drinking problem.
Christopher AET
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2012-05-23 14:52:49 UTC
Only issue with such a valuable resource is with all that isk you can finance fleets making them essentially untouchable to people without those assets. It's an unbalanced mechanic but not one I begrudge those who do hold them from using.

Hell I would do the same in their position.

I drain ducks of their moisture for sustenance.
Ituhata Saken
Killboard Padding Services
#5 - 2012-05-23 14:56:13 UTC
JitaPriceChecker2 wrote:
All i can see they give reason to NAP.



I think that's just part of the human element, we are a species that embraces strength in numbers. I may be wrong, but I doubt any changes CCP makes can prevent the politics of 0.0.

So close...
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#6 - 2012-05-23 15:01:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobiaz
Gilbaron wrote:
the problem is not that tech moons provide such a great income

the problem is that a major part of all tech moons is clustered in the north

NO

The REAL cause are the extremely low cost of jump and bridge mechanics causing excessive power projection and low-cost, risk-free logistics for null alliances.

Alliances can now NAP an entire hemisphere of the map, create a massive hinterland, continue to stave off boredom-rot by simply fighting the neighbors of the neighbors of their neighbors, yet STILL respond to any threat to their moons, quickly, low-cost and with excessive NAP-train force.

Nerf THAT, and a super-coalition like the CFC will quickly shatter under internal and external pressure. Likely into two or three unfriendly entities owning the Tech moons and several ambitious neighbours trying to take a piece of it.

Sizes of empires are pretty much always defined by logistical prowess.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!
Darion Amador
Followers of Ouroboros
#7 - 2012-05-23 15:01:42 UTC
Hicksimus wrote:
Gilbaron wrote:
the problem is not that tech moons provide such a great income

the problem is that a major part of all tech moons is clustered in the north



Yeah CCP screwed up, I think they should have just put them all in one system.



That would be awesome Twisted
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2012-05-23 15:14:04 UTC
Tobiaz wrote:
Gilbaron wrote:
the problem is not that tech moons provide such a great income

the problem is that a major part of all tech moons is clustered in the north

NO

The REAL cause are the extremely low cost of jump and bridge mechanics causing excessive power projection and low-cost, risk-free logistics for null alliances.

Alliances can now NAP an entire hemisphere of the map, create a massive hinterland, continue to stave off boredom-rot by simply fighting the neighbors of the neighbors of their neighbors, yet STILL respond to any threat to their moons, quickly, low-cost and with excessive NAP-train force.

Nerf THAT, and a super-coalition like the CFC will quickly shatter under internal and external pressure. Likely into two or three unfriendly entities owning the Tech moons and several ambitious neighbours trying to take a piece of it.

Sizes of empires are pretty much always defined by logistical prowess.


NO

super coalitions would actually have a much easier time organising logistics
No More Heroes
Boomer Humor
Snuffed Out
#9 - 2012-05-23 15:17:58 UTC
JitaPriceChecker2 wrote:
All i can see they give reason to NAP.



You seem to be pretty mad about Technetium bro. Why don't you tell us why?

.
Savage Angel
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2012-05-23 15:19:53 UTC
They give a reason for forum fights and whining. Isn't that enough?
Kaahles
Jion Keanturi
#11 - 2012-05-23 15:22:13 UTC
There is one single problem with the entire moon mineral thing. It's a static amount of supply coming in. The number of Technetium moons is fixed, it does not change, thus the maximum available amount of technetium entering the game is fixed. Which is incredibly stupid.

EVE has a constantly growing player base and so a system seeding resources into the game has to be dynamic. Mining is dynamic. More players need ships, demand on minerals rises and the mineral price is rising as a result which in turn gets more people into mining thus increasing the amount of minerals entering the game.

The same thing can be said for tech2. Demand rises which increases price which get's more people into invention, chasing out data cores, hunting for decryptors and that sort of stuff.

You don't have that with moon minerals which is incredibly stupid since they are the foundation of any tech 2 gear. That ladies and gentlemen is more than enough reason for an approach like the idea of putting that sort of stuff into ring mining as an example. I only hope they'll do this with every single one moon mineral because otherwise another bottleneck might show up a year or so later.

Oh and believe me there will be plenty enough reason to fight for 0.0 space in particular. First of all to get own space in the first place, then to get better system for ratting or with a better planet distribution for PI and maybe even ring mining (not all planets have rings you know and I like to believe that not every ring will be exactly the same depending on true-sec status).
Tinnin Sylph
Perkone
Caldari State
#12 - 2012-05-23 15:24:32 UTC
Oh hey congratulations on another dumb thread just like your last dumb tech thread.

Heh.
Gibbo3771
AQUILA INC
#13 - 2012-05-23 15:27:38 UTC
Remove it all or nerf the amount you can suck at a time.

Either that or greatly increase the build cost of supercaps so that rather than alliances supplying free 1000 man maelstrom fleets every time they get attacked they either spend it on a few supers or several fleets.

Or remove it all

Or remove it all
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#14 - 2012-05-23 15:28:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobiaz
Gilbaron wrote:
Tobiaz wrote:
Gilbaron wrote:
the problem is not that tech moons provide such a great income

the problem is that a major part of all tech moons is clustered in the north

NO

The REAL cause are the extremely low cost of jump and bridge mechanics causing excessive power projection and low-cost, risk-free logistics for null alliances.

Alliances can now NAP an entire hemisphere of the map, create a massive hinterland, continue to stave off boredom-rot by simply fighting the neighbors of the neighbors of their neighbors, yet STILL respond to any threat to their moons, quickly, low-cost and with excessive NAP-train force.

Nerf THAT, and a super-coalition like the CFC will quickly shatter under internal and external pressure. Likely into two or three unfriendly entities owning the Tech moons and several ambitious neighbours trying to take a piece of it.

Sizes of empires are pretty much always defined by logistical prowess.


NO

super coalitions would actually have a much easier time organising logistics


But with strongly diminishing returns.

Without cheap logistics, power doesn't scale very well with member-size.
Without cheap logistics, cartel-members can't help each other protect their moons.
Without cheap logistics, super coalitions can't effectively protect their territory

Look at the history of EVE and the growth of null-alliances and you'll see that I'm right.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!
JitaPriceChecker2
Doomheim
#15 - 2012-05-23 15:53:37 UTC
No More Heroes wrote:
JitaPriceChecker2 wrote:
All i can see they give reason to NAP.



You seem to be pretty mad about Technetium bro. Why don't you tell us why?


You seem to be pretty happy about Technetium bro. Why don't you tell us why?
JitaPriceChecker2
Doomheim
#16 - 2012-05-23 15:54:36 UTC
Tinnin Sylph wrote:
Oh hey congratulations on another dumb thread just like your last dumb tech thread.


Oh hey congratulations on another dumb goon comment just like plenty before.
CARB0N FIBER
Derailleurs
#17 - 2012-05-23 15:55:40 UTC
Fighting is the only reason to ight I need
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2012-05-23 15:57:31 UTC
reduced ability to use jump drives and bridges might result in some more (small and smallest scale) PVP happening

it would not change anything about power projection
Doctor Benway Kado
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#19 - 2012-05-23 16:13:13 UTC
I think JitaPriceChexker2 keeps posting these threads just so Tobiaz can post his dumb jump bridge rant again. Won't stop me from feeling superior and smirking in another tech thread
JitaPriceChecker2
Doomheim
#20 - 2012-05-23 16:19:22 UTC  |  Edited by: JitaPriceChecker2
Doctor Benway Kado wrote:
I think JitaPriceChexker2 keeps posting these threads just so Tobiaz can post his dumb jump bridge rant again. Won't stop me from feeling superior and smirking in another tech thread


I think goons keep trolling in these threads instead of addressing my question just so can keep sucking moon gold. Won't stop to me from bringing attention to larger playerbase.

If moons are incentive to fight why do you NAP over them.

And with that question the myth falls.
123Next page