These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Science & Industry

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Invention - Any method to bulk/mass invent?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Iogrim
Matterhorn.
#21 - 2013-01-10 20:50:36 UTC
Vince Snetterton wrote:
Toku Jiang wrote:
I find the whole business of risk vs. reward a complete and utter joke when people begin spewing about the consequences of mining/manufacturing in null sec. Unless something changes with the current Alliance/Nap structure, it will only allow those people to have an even greater pull of isk, and they have very little to zero risk in their current mining systems as it is. In all my years of playing this game I have never ever lost a hulk in null sec, in fact they were never even shot at. I've also built everything from T1 ammo to cap ships in null sec and never lost a manufacturing POS. Only morons get ganked in their hulks in null sec, and people not paying attention to the current flow of war lose manufacturing POS's. As for T2 production, how is moving it to null sec/low sec going to help the game? For years before invention T2 items and ships were extremely expensive, most people flew T1 ships into combat, and T2 mods were not used unless they were affordable cheap items. If they make things even more expensive for new players or things even more complex they will not be doing anything to help breed a good culture to bring new players into the game and give existing players an even stronger monopoly grip on null sec then they already have.


All you have said is true and reasonable.

It does not change the fact that there was a 110 page threadnaught, with many many posts by people with null sec employment monikers stating the exact opposite of hwat you have said, we have the posts by the dev's that I have already linked,
and we have CCP's track record when it comes to making monumental mechanics changes, and the impact on the game.

What do you all think this is pointing at?


Mass collapse of T2 economy and most manufacturers not willing to move to 0.0 at any costs?
Vince Snetterton
#22 - 2013-01-10 20:57:31 UTC
Iogrim wrote:
Vince Snetterton wrote:
Toku Jiang wrote:
I find the whole business of risk vs. reward a complete and utter joke when people begin spewing about the consequences of mining/manufacturing in null sec. Unless something changes with the current Alliance/Nap structure, it will only allow those people to have an even greater pull of isk, and they have very little to zero risk in their current mining systems as it is. In all my years of playing this game I have never ever lost a hulk in null sec, in fact they were never even shot at. I've also built everything from T1 ammo to cap ships in null sec and never lost a manufacturing POS. Only morons get ganked in their hulks in null sec, and people not paying attention to the current flow of war lose manufacturing POS's. As for T2 production, how is moving it to null sec/low sec going to help the game? For years before invention T2 items and ships were extremely expensive, most people flew T1 ships into combat, and T2 mods were not used unless they were affordable cheap items. If they make things even more expensive for new players or things even more complex they will not be doing anything to help breed a good culture to bring new players into the game and give existing players an even stronger monopoly grip on null sec then they already have.


All you have said is true and reasonable.

It does not change the fact that there was a 110 page threadnaught, with many many posts by people with null sec employment monikers stating the exact opposite of hwat you have said, we have the posts by the dev's that I have already linked,
and we have CCP's track record when it comes to making monumental mechanics changes, and the impact on the game.

What do you all think this is pointing at?


Mass collapse of T2 economy and most manufacturers not willing to move to 0.0 at any costs?


As we begin to hear precisely what CCP has in mind for the summer release, I expect I will be stockpiling a LOT of DC II's.
Toku Jiang
Jiang Laboratories and Discovery
#23 - 2013-01-10 21:36:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Toku Jiang
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I think that moving T2 production is a mistake and regulating to low/null sec makes zero sense. What is the air quality too poor in high sec space to be able to do this? There will be no reasonable explaination for it, just the execuse that "null sec should be better so screw the rest of the population!" If they move the T2 industry to null, it really won't effect me that much, it will simply inconvenience me for a short while as I adjust my logistics pattern and do a reverse flow of what I do now (this isn't my main obviously). It will be a minor modification to our operation and what JF will haul back and forth. The problem is you will kill off any incentive for newer players to set up a high sec POS and do invention, invest in BPO's, or invest in T2 manufacturing, which will drive up the price of the T2 market to unhealthy levels. This only leaves noobs with mining, FW, missions, and T1 industry. These aren't terrible ways to make isk, but it limits their options of gameplay, and what they have access to in the game of EVE. I know there is a risk/reward value on everything, but quite frankly I just think the null sec rewards and options should be buffed. Granted there are a few niche T1 items that can be made for a good profit, but once you take T2 production away from them, they will flood the T1 market with goods and destroy any profit margins on those items. It will leave them with little isk, and they will stay poor unless they want to sell their souls to the uber alliances of null sec.

If CCP would simply allow better security and use of POS modules and their mechanics, they would eliminate the want and need of high sec POS setup, because most high sec POS's are owned and run by a shell corp that is managed and owned by alliance and corp members who can mine and do all that crap in null sec, but due to the limitation of POS function do not have roles to anchor their own stuff, or dont' have access to manufacturing slots and storage because of the rightful fear of corp theft, or the fact that the corp doesn't want all of their manufacturing slots full and have them for dedicated use for corp operations only.

I'm not saying null sec doesn't deserve some improvements, it most certainly does, but that really has more to do with crappy sov mechanics, poor function of outposts, poor function and capabilities of the POS, and lack of overall control of null sec "owned" space by alliances and corporations and most importantly the individual members of those corps and alliances.
Vince Snetterton
#24 - 2013-01-10 22:37:26 UTC
Toku Jiang wrote:
Lot's of facts.


Unfortunately, you are one of the few voices in the wilderness, it seems.
There are many, many "influential" null sec voices running a propaganda campaign to convince I really don't know who, that there is a huge problem with null sec industry and the only way to introduce that lovely word "balance" into the game is to hammer high sec in conjunction with a null sec buff.

What I believe is that they are trying to push the whole spectrum towards null sec. They know they won't get everything they want, but will get far more than if they were silent.
It is standard politics/bargaining.

Unfortunately, high sec is never going to be organized enough to counter the volume of statements made by the null sec zealots, and hence high sec is left out of the "discussion", and loses.

So regardless of reason and logic, I expect bad bad things for high sec industry in about 5 months.
Iogrim
Matterhorn.
#25 - 2013-01-11 07:44:10 UTC
Vince Snetterton wrote:
Toku Jiang wrote:
Lot's of facts.


Unfortunately, you are one of the few voices in the wilderness, it seems.
There are many, many "influential" null sec voices running a propaganda campaign to convince I really don't know who, that there is a huge problem with null sec industry and the only way to introduce that lovely word "balance" into the game is to hammer high sec in conjunction with a null sec buff.

What I believe is that they are trying to push the whole spectrum towards null sec. They know they won't get everything they want, but will get far more than if they were silent.
It is standard politics/bargaining.

Unfortunately, high sec is never going to be organized enough to counter the volume of statements made by the null sec zealots, and hence high sec is left out of the "discussion", and loses.

So regardless of reason and logic, I expect bad bad things for high sec industry in about 5 months.


Never read that threadnought. On out of game communication (blogs), majority understand that you can't force players to adapt playstyles they don't want. So if they will move T2 production to 0.0, the industry won't move - simply shutdown. There are not enough manufacturers in 0.0 to replicate even small part of high-sec T2 industry.
Eric Raeder
No Fee Too High
#26 - 2013-01-12 16:57:52 UTC
I haven't the time to read through the infamous 110 page threadnaught, but my cursory skimming of the topic suggests to me that CCP's thinking on this topic is that they want people to do more manufacturing in nullsec, and the reason most T2 is not done in highsec is highsec POS's are too easy and risk free to set up and run.

Wrong. There is not a great deal of difference between the risks and costs of running POSs in highsec vs nullsec. The primary reason most T2 production is done in highsec is market mechanics.

Too understand why this is so, consider that the T2 production process breaks into two halves with very different characteristics. The raw material half: production of T2 subcomponents, and the final assembly half: assembling those components into actual T2 items.

There are 2 main types of T2 subcomponents: those that come from planetary interaction, and those that come from moon minerals. Most T2 items also require some minerals, but the cost of the minerals needed is so low compared to what the t2 subcomponents cost it can pretty much be ignored.

Planetary interaction can be done anywhere, but current game mechanics drive it towards nullsec as the low draw rates and high NPC taxes associated with highsec PI make it much less profitable than nullsec.

Moongoo derived subcomponents are different, the raw materials needed for those come from moon mining, which most assuredly cannot be done just anywhere. Moon mineral distribution is highly uneven, with some of the most crucial (and thus expensive) bottleneck minerals only being found in specific nullsec regions. CCP has recently expanded the alchemy process to reduce the importance of bottleneck moon minerals, but make no mistake, alchemy is always more expensive than mining the minerals directly, and the market will always be heavily influenced by control of those moons. Since reactors to turn the raw materials into subcomponents also require POSs, various economies can be gained by manufacturing the T2 subcomponents in the same POSs that do the extraction, or in nearby specialized industry POSs. Thus T2 subcomponent manufacture is primarily a nullsec activity already.

This leaves the final assembly part of the T2 production process. This requires acquiring the necessary blueprints, which normally means invention, acquiring the raw materials, and plugging those into an assembly line for the actual manufacture. This can be done literally anywhere, but is primarily done in highsec. There seem to be a lot of people who think this is done in highsec because you need POS labs for invention, and POS assembly arrays speed up manufacturing, and highsecec POS's are so risk free doing this in low or null makes no sense.

WRONG. The low risk of highsec POSs is not what is driving T2 final assembly to highsec. What drives final assembly to highsec is access to market hubs. To make a typical T2 item you will need several different T2 subcomponents, some of them from PI and some of them moongoo derived. Any given T2 subcomponent is used in a great variety of different T2 items, so there is no 1 to 1 correspondence between raw material sources and final output items. This means that each corporation doing moon mining will eventually need to distribute its raw materials or the subcomponents made from them to a multitude of different final assembly manufacturers, and each final assembly manufacturer will have to acquire his raw materials from a number of different source corporations. This redistribution of raw materials to final assembly manufacturers naturally takes place at market hubs.

To be useful as a market hub, a system must be easily accessible by as many players as possible, which is why all the major market hubs are in highsec. The violent rivalry between the various nullsec player organizations means no potential market hub in nullsec will ever be accesible to anywhere near as many players as the highsec market hubs protected by concord.

So a final assembly manufacturer is going to acquire his T2 subcomponents, or at least the moon minerals needed to make them, in highsec market hubs. When the final assembly is finished, most independent producers are going to want to take the final product back to a market hub for resale. Hauling the raw materials to nullsec for manufacture, then hauling the finished products back to highsec to sell is a senseless waste of effort. It is simply much easier to do the final assembly as close to the market hubs as possible. The fact that highsec POSs are "safe" is convenient to highsec manufacturers, but not especially relevant.
Emma Royd
Maddled Gommerils
#27 - 2013-01-12 19:33:44 UTC
I think someone at CCP heard about not enough isk sinks and came up with this cockamanie idea, it's going to put T2 prices up, but it won't be the players who really see it, it'll be the big corps who have well defended space in null with good logistics, who can afford to ship jump freighter fulls of components up to null and then take the modules back down again.

I'm all for encouraging people to expand out of empire, but forcing people out by stopping things they have spent time and isk training up to do seems a little draconian. I'll move to nullsec IF I WANT TO, not IF I'M FORCED TO.

By introducing these plans, it's going to lead to


  • Some players emoragequitting.
  • Some players moving up to null, I guess there's a reasonable percentage of empire industrial characters that are alts for PvP'ers who are already in null.
  • Some players sticking in high-sec and dropping down to T1 manufacturing.


The problems are:

  • If some players emoragequit then there's not a massive impact on the game, so no real problem.
  • If some players move up to null, where are the corps? you don't often see corps advertising for industry players for null, mostly PvP
  • If people drop down to T1 manufacturing, the market is going to be saturated and profits will be really slim, everyone will be playing the 0.1 isk game, and people will get frustrated and stop, why go through all the hassle of running a pos or moving materials around to make virtually no profit? - this will lead to an unstable market, people will stop building so supply goes down, prices will rise, and then they may start building again, prices will drop etc.


Personally I won't be forced into moving to null, if they do the changes I'll probably lapse accounts and go find another game to play, they keep saying it's a sandbox but then by doing this, they don't like the sandbox theory.
Bobo Cindekela
Doomheim
#28 - 2013-01-15 07:32:50 UTC
the problem with your suggested feature is that it would make t2 bpc even more worthless

anyone who has the skill to make the bpc has the skill to make the end item

anyone who has the skill to make the end item, has the skill to make their own bpcs

endless queueing without all the time/effort spent will draw the price of t2 bpo and manufacturing right into the toilet

You are about to engage in an arguement with a forum alt,  this is your final warning.
Previous page12