EVE Information Portal

hahaha yeah as if the other alliances didn't also see this coming. That Honeybadger/TEST/CFC took that space first is their own fault.

Nanohacs anyone?

Actually this sort of stuff happens everyday, fuel prices get too high and people SUSTITUTE, they trade fuel guzzlers for more fuel efficient, they ride the bus, comapnies ship by rail, coal and nuclear get pushed up to replace oil in electricity production, high enough prices and really creative things start to happen (Synthetic rubber was invented to solve a similar issue in world war II, wood was used in some airplanes to save precious aluminium in some cases).


Alchemy though hoaky in form represents what markets really do if an imput goes to high an alternatives are found until prices find a new equilibrium. Since the game would be to complicated to follow the real world this plug should help.


Also to the dofusess in Goons, etc. complaininng about the "loss" in alliance income and "why should we have to grind", if you really think about it the fact you did not have to grind and could just get ships replaced might have some smalll part to do with your eassy victorys in Delve, etc. The fact that the SOCOs had to replace heir own ships AND give up producing income I would hazzard a guess made getting call to arms work very difficult. Look Goons (the foot soldiers, not the alliance) are going to flow to the best deal so you had the advantage there in the recruitment of the order following types, the other side had to try and call up forces with vague promises of "no rent for next month" 100 mill reimburse on tengus and 1/2 on logis (not as good as mach reimburse, huh).


It would not shock me to find out several hundred pilots might have msutered to Delve had we gotten a better deal , hell I might been there for a few days and I am afraid of big fleets. YOu may have still won, but the fight probaly would still be going on and SOCO would have had a chance to see if resource exhastion would have set in.

aww boo hoo your alliances (which still shouldn't be poor even though they may not have had tech) can't do a proper ship replacement programme? well shucks, kick them in the nuts until they offer it.

This should be interesting!

It's not in "one region", hth.

I haven't read all the posts. Sorry if this has already been brought up, but I haven't read anything on this so far:

1. The big payoff for taking the risks of nullsec is moon mining. Everything else is in the game can be obtained from highsec or a highsec static wh.

2. The EVE experience is unique in that you, as a player, are allowed to rule the skys. I am not aware of another mmo which allows so much player control. If they "fix" all the player exploits isn't that just saying, "work hard, but don't be crafty because big brother will take your toys away!". I see there is a problem with moon goo. I have been wondering what could be done to fix this problem, but in reality there isn't a problem that players can't fix already. If we don't like the prices of moon goo we should band together, with a temporary peace pact, and go take those moons!

I my be viewed as a noob for suggesting such a thing when those moons are guarded by such a powerful coalition, but the game is set to cater to numbers not capitals.

If there is a problem it really stems from the lack of capacity we have as players to trust each other (temporarily at least) to band together for a common cause. There is a concept known as crabs in a barrel. The concept is: the crabs will climb on top of each other to get out of the barrel, but as soon as one has grasped the top the others will all hang and climb on him until he falls. The cycle starts over and in the end no one has the technite monopoly or the top of the barrel.

A limited trust can be accomplished by increasing the consequences for attacking a fellow member of an established faction/race/coalition or non-aggression pacts; however CCP sees fit to implement this solution.

I envision this accomplished in the form of a bounty system that allows anyone in the territory of a faction to shoot anyone who has a bounty on their head from unlawful acts against a member of that faction. The bounty would be calculated based on the total loss of the assaulted party plus fines and fees which correlates appropriately with the crimes committed. This can be enhanced or decreased based on the standings of all involved parties making it more risky to shoot someone with higher standings or in high security space. The bounty would be provided by the injured party (so it doesn't become an ISK faucet). The assailant would then have their bounty reduced by a given percentage of their lost ship appropriate for the combined severity of their crime, standings, and the security of the system involved. This is so the party who has already been assaulted isn't doubly punished by having to put up a bounty in order to get retribution of 1/2 their loss (cost of loss + cost of bounty).

With a bounty system carefully implemented, we could have some trust in our fellow pilots. This is if all parties are of good standings with the faction we commonly share. If they shoot you they will not be able to fly safely through their own "home" regions.

The bounty system plus a faction fleet command interface built to orchestrate fleet operations would make this change facilitate the crabs in a barrel effect with technite and all other situations so CCP can stay cool as the one developer who allows their audience to truly play!

@CCP Omen

what about ring mining????

wasnt the suggested what (part) of the moon goo would be comming from ring mining.

I haven't read the whole 20 page of post ... but did the previous " change" actually lower price of T2 materials ? or just made the big boys slightly less rich ? will this have any impact on the price of t2 gear or again just slightly lower the monopole of certain materials
from big alliances and coalitions .

I think the change is good but have serious doubt has to any real impact it will have .
When I see the Technicium advert during the tourny and I wonder how much those alliances control ... 1/3 ... 1/2 ... 3/4...

Cheers
Nathan