EVE General Discussion

Someone earlier in the thread said that all of nulls industry slots couldn't fuel their ammo consumption, that's before you take into account the tritanium bottleneck.

So run the maths. You have the information you need.

I can see how lack of reading comprehension may have caused your misunderstanding here. I said that lack of knowledge or education in one area or subject does not invalidate that persons argument in another completely different area.

Just because you are uneducated or ignorant in lets say nuclear physics doesn’t mean your opinion can be dismissed in other areas.

Hope this helped you.

I had such a nice reply written, but one version sounded snotty, the other made me sound like a bragger, the third one made me sound as though I knew it all when the reality is, I most certainly don't, so I'll just say.


+1


o/
Celly

Inviting more industrial corps into null will not make it better for industry.

Yes it will


More people will know how broken it is

I have a couple of questions for Malcanis et al; I am trying to understand the null side of the argument, and am coming up short.

1) Are the industrial slots you're looking for to be in NPC stations those with Sov have no control over? I'm asking because my understanding is that if they are in any other situation, ongoing wars will destroy or disable them enough to drive industrialists away. Having your production run half finished when the station changes hands and you lose access isn't something many industrialists want to risk, either (hence the lack of production in Delve). It sounds very much like the very wars that characterize null are also working to keep industry out. How would this be overcome even if player-built infrastructure suddenly allowed 100x the current number of industry slots?

2) I tried a year and more back to find a good null corp for a mining alt; I wound up keeping her in high, instead. Not one null corp that I talked to said that miners and industrialists were exempted from CTA's, meaning my miner would have had to first train for combat ships and then continually drop everything to go PvP. I mention this because people have asserted several times that there is no bias against miners/industrialists in null, yet I've heard them called useless several times even in this thread because they wished to be exempt from CTA's. What are your plans for changing this general attitude, or do you still deny it exists at all? Do you think miners and industrialists SHOULD be exempt from CTA's because they are meant to support the alliance in other ways, or do you think the lack of an exemption is correct? I realize you don't control policies for all the alliances in null, I'm just looking for your opinion, and want to know if you would recommend such a thing to the various alliance leaders.

3) Granted my experience in null is limited, but that experience taught me that there is no such thing as a 'safe' system in null. I got caught in gate camps several times well within my alliance's borders, and we had to safe up to avoid reds constantly even while ratting/running anoms. No miner is going to be able to produce much under those circumstances, and most PvP'ers would scream at the idea of scouting gates for or guarding mining ops. Given the active hostility of the mechanics of null itself toward ships with no real defenses of their own, how do you expect to draw miners even if there were industrialists actively seeking the minerals?

4) Do you think that nerfing high sec is really a solution to the problems of null? Given the thousands of empty production slots all over high, it would take a serious nerf to have any real impact; aren't you at all concerned that such a massive hit will drive people out of the game, rather than out of high into null? What exact nerfs would you be in favor of, and how do you think they will really benefit null without dictating to industrialists how they play? I know you all hate that concept, but you don't/wouldn't want to be forced into high sec, so you have to ride the line between making the style of play you want viable and not dictating someone else's unfairly.

Please don't assume I have an agenda behind these questions; I am all in favor of a null sec industry buff, as it does seem a bit unbalanced. However, I'm also wondering if there aren't other problems with moving industry to null that are built in to the game mechanics and player attitudes, neither of which would be solved by adding industry slots and low ores to null.

Neither here nor there - you only addressed one of my questions, and arguably the least important one. I admit I only have the one experience to draw in regarding that point, but I wouldn't have termed the alliance **** in any way, other than a few of their allies' FC's.

So say the isk/hour increase you're seeking goes through; do you honestly think any non-game-breaking increase in rewards is going to be enough to overcome the risks and constant interruptions from passing reds and AFK cloaks? I'd say the isk/hour would have to be jumped quite high, possibly higher than the overall economy could tolerate, before you'd draw enough miners to make null industry even mostly independent of high-sec miners.

Frankly I'm not sure that creating a completely independent null is something CCP wants or should want, any more than high-sec miners should be able to exist without the mineral demands of low and null. I have to wonder if asking CCP would get an answer of "working as intended". I know comparisons to real life are often suspect, but if the economy is to work anything like a real one, trade between regions/nations is desirable, not something to be gotten rid of.

I remember CCP's nullsec whiteboard had "99% self-sufficient by volume" on it under 'industry'. We can use that to determine intention, I think :D I'm guessing volume doesn't really refer to an ingame metric but it's certainly seperate from ISK value

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/devblog/2011/nullsec-board-for-blog.jpg