These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Mynnna for CSM8

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#121 - 2013-03-21 16:08:54 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Zloco Crendraven wrote:
What do u think about the state the lowsec is in atm, and do u think that it needs any revitalization, if yes, what?
And pls dont equalize FW as whole lowsec.


Lowsec definitely needs work, yes. The best approach, in my mind, is to start by crafting an underlying theme, and then work from there - that is, sovereign nullsec is about empire building, wormholes are a harsh and uncontrollable frontier, so what should lowsec be? I don't exactly know the answer to the question, and frankly it's probably better answered by people who actually live in lowsec anyway. Once an overarching theme is in place, though, then features to suite the theme can be developed. Without the theme, though, you're just spitballing random features out there and hoping they stick, which isn't a recipe for success.

But regarding FW, no, FW is something to do in lowsec but it is not what lowsec is, and anyone who suggests that the best way to fix lowsec is to just make FW everywhere is an awful person who should be ashamed of themselves.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
Shadow Cartel
#122 - 2013-03-21 17:15:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Zloco Crendraven
mynnna wrote:
Zloco Crendraven wrote:
What do u think about the state the lowsec is in atm, and do u think that it needs any revitalization, if yes, what?
And pls dont equalize FW as whole lowsec.


Lowsec definitely needs work, yes. The best approach, in my mind, is to start by crafting an underlying theme, and then work from there - that is, sovereign nullsec is about empire building, wormholes are a harsh and uncontrollable frontier, so what should lowsec be? I don't exactly know the answer to the question, and frankly it's probably better answered by people who actually live in lowsec anyway. Once an overarching theme is in place, though, then features to suite the theme can be developed. Without the theme, though, you're just spitballing random features out there and hoping they stick, which isn't a recipe for success.

But regarding FW, no, FW is something to do in lowsec but it is not what lowsec is, and anyone who suggests that the best way to fix lowsec is to just make FW everywhere is an awful person who should be ashamed of themselves.


I agree fully what u said. For me the lowsec should be about possibilities. Possibilities that any organized small entity is after, willing to put some effort for them and not afraid to face the consequences (nonconsensual PvP, - securtiy status, restricted range of targets like militia)

The 3 "factions" that should aspire for lowsec possibilities should be:
- Small organized entities (corps, alliances) with an industry and military backbone
- Militia
- And outlaws, pirates, mercenaries who will try to denie those possibilities to other factions and have some for themselves.

The only side that is working atm is Militia, because of only one reason. They make good isk for what the consequences are.
Rest of lowsec has really low isk/hour or even choices. I am talking about mainly average skilled with average SP people.

What i had in mind is for when the nullsec revamp comes along is to make the same for lowsec. No passive income, the taxation is the way to go. Entities should tax their members directly, trough interface or indirectly for resources.

But in order for this to work there should be reason corp members to go out and farm. When there will be reason than there will be conflict, because when your members want to farm that smth, prolly members of other entities will want it too.

So what i am getting at is the reason. Make regions, constellations around lowsec to be better than the others. Station have lower taxes in some parts, Better DED spawns in other, Abundant mineral asteroids somewhere else. Rare minerals, gas cloud zones, Officer NPCs, good ratting systems etc. etc.

This doesnt have to be boosted insanely, but a bit of a bust is needed to get that isk farming wanted and worth it. The same can be done for nullsec, regions with special resources would be the all time conflict driver. Most resources should be available in every space pocket. Some areas should have some boosted resources and some should be unique having a resource only in that region.

Like that u get:
- Smaller entities will go after the space with most resources in one area but in smaller amounts.
- Medium, large entities will go for the space with the same above but boosted particular resource
- Larger entities will go for space with all those up + a special resource that is mostly available in there.

With doing that u ll have sovereignty in lowsec too. Not physical one but sovereignty by presence, domination over others in certain boosted areas. WHs have same kind of sovereignty, because you can make fortresses of your hole. Lowsec has it too but it doesnt matter that much where u really are.

The same thinking can be applied to highsec. Than what is needed to do is tweak the % and ratios btw nullsec, lowsec and highsec. WHs are kind of a result of what i ve written. U got most of the thing in there + abundant Gas + sleepers and it is working well.

These are just some ideas but what i actually wanted to say is for when CCP decide to fixx in nullsec it should go the same with minor differences for lowsec too with fixed ratios for nullsec to be much more appealing.

Thinking like this would bring every sec in line, where u need than to tweak the ratios and u ll have a nice balance.

BALEX, bringing piracy on a whole new level.
I Was There
Habemus
#123 - 2013-03-21 18:01:32 UTC
Zloco Crendraven wrote:
[quote=mynnna][quote=Zloco Crendraven]
The 3 "factions" that should aspire for lowsec possibilities should be:
- Small organized entities (corps, alliances) with an industry and military backbone
- Militia
- And outlaws, pirates, mercenaries who will try to denie those possibilities to other factions and have some for themselves.


The pirate corp/alliances can deny FW sov. This is actually an awesome idea!
Prince Kobol
#124 - 2013-03-21 18:15:54 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
Yet is there any need?

Lets be honest here you are the official Goonswarm Candidate so you are guaranteed a place of the CSM and as for being chairman, well that is just a title, it doesn't give you any extra powers, hell just look at CM7, Seleene has been awol for most of it.

Also even you own CEO has stated that anything said on these forums is a waste of time and makes damn near no difference so why bother?

Just to add, I am not having a go or complaining, I have no issues with block voting, its how politics work and what Goonswarm has shown more then others is that they have a great ability to get organised when the need arises and I congratulate them on that


To cut through what you're saying, the fact that I have a bloc at my back means I don't need to pander here for votes. That doesn't mean I am not actually interested letting people ask me questions or in hearing from people, quite the opposite in fact... while I have a few "good ideas" if I do say so myself, having people ask questions or pitch their own ideas leads to new, interesting areas for both sides. I'd never have thought much about this (unless or until it came up somewhere else)


Many thanks for the reply

Prince
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
Shadow Cartel
#125 - 2013-03-21 19:13:29 UTC
I Was There wrote:
Zloco Crendraven wrote:
[quote=mynnna][quote=Zloco Crendraven]
The 3 "factions" that should aspire for lowsec possibilities should be:
- Small organized entities (corps, alliances) with an industry and military backbone
- Militia
- And outlaws, pirates, mercenaries who will try to denie those possibilities to other factions and have some for themselves.


The pirate corp/alliances can deny FW sov. This is actually an awesome idea!


Yeah i wrote smth about connection of the rest of lowsec to FW.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=212358

BALEX, bringing piracy on a whole new level.
Powers Sa
#126 - 2013-03-22 04:34:14 UTC
Hi Mynnna. We should probably catch up on jabber this weekend.

Do you like winning t2 frigs and dictors for Dirt Cheap?https://eveninggames.net/register/ref/dQddmNgyLhFBqNJk

Remeber: Gambling addiction is no laughing matter unless you've lost a vast space fortune on the internet.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#127 - 2013-03-22 14:21:42 UTC
Zloco Crendraven wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Zloco Crendraven wrote:
What do u think about the state the lowsec is in atm, and do u think that it needs any revitalization, if yes, what?
And pls dont equalize FW as whole lowsec.


Lowsec definitely needs work, yes. The best approach, in my mind, is to start by crafting an underlying theme, and then work from there - that is, sovereign nullsec is about empire building, wormholes are a harsh and uncontrollable frontier, so what should lowsec be? I don't exactly know the answer to the question, and frankly it's probably better answered by people who actually live in lowsec anyway. Once an overarching theme is in place, though, then features to suite the theme can be developed. Without the theme, though, you're just spitballing random features out there and hoping they stick, which isn't a recipe for success.

But regarding FW, no, FW is something to do in lowsec but it is not what lowsec is, and anyone who suggests that the best way to fix lowsec is to just make FW everywhere is an awful person who should be ashamed of themselves.


I agree fully what u said. For me the lowsec should be about possibilities. Possibilities that any organized small entity is after, willing to put some effort for them and not afraid to face the consequences (nonconsensual PvP, - securtiy status, restricted range of targets like militia)

The 3 "factions" that should aspire for lowsec possibilities should be:
- Small organized entities (corps, alliances) with an industry and military backbone
- Militia
- And outlaws, pirates, mercenaries who will try to denie those possibilities to other factions and have some for themselves.

The only side that is working atm is Militia, because of only one reason. They make good isk for what the consequences are.
Rest of lowsec has really low isk/hour or even choices. I am talking about mainly average skilled with average SP people.

What i had in mind is for when the nullsec revamp comes along is to make the same for lowsec. No passive income, the taxation is the way to go. Entities should tax their members directly, trough interface or indirectly for resources.

But in order for this to work there should be reason corp members to go out and farm. When there will be reason than there will be conflict, because when your members want to farm that smth, prolly members of other entities will want it too.

So what i am getting at is the reason. Make regions, constellations around lowsec to be better than the others. Station have lower taxes in some parts, Better DED spawns in other, Abundant mineral asteroids somewhere else. Rare minerals, gas cloud zones, Officer NPCs, good ratting systems etc. etc.

This doesnt have to be boosted insanely, but a bit of a bust is needed to get that isk farming wanted and worth it. The same can be done for nullsec, regions with special resources would be the all time conflict driver. Most resources should be available in every space pocket. Some areas should have some boosted resources and some should be unique having a resource only in that region.

Like that u get:
- Smaller entities will go after the space with most resources in one area but in smaller amounts.
- Medium, large entities will go for the space with the same above but boosted particular resource
- Larger entities will go for space with all those up + a special resource that is mostly available in there.

With doing that u ll have sovereignty in lowsec too. Not physical one but sovereignty by presence, domination over others in certain boosted areas. WHs have same kind of sovereignty, because you can make fortresses of your hole. Lowsec has it too but it doesnt matter that much where u really are.

The same thinking can be applied to highsec. Than what is needed to do is tweak the % and ratios btw nullsec, lowsec and highsec. WHs are kind of a result of what i ve written. U got most of the thing in there + abundant Gas + sleepers and it is working well.

These are just some ideas but what i actually wanted to say is for when CCP decide to fixx in nullsec it should go the same with minor differences for lowsec too with fixed ratios for nullsec to be much more appealing.

Thinking like this would bring every sec in line, where u need than to tweak the ratios and u ll have a nice balance.


I may have a suggestion... Whatever boost was applied to a lowsec zone, it must expire at some point. Boosts must "travel" from one zone to another, spawning and despawning at a sensible rate, to trigger the type of dynamic conflict that sovereignty prevents.

Rather than "conquerable" space, lowsec should be "temporally exploitable" space, whivh would "deplete" after a time (maybe a couple months?) and thus would naturally trigger conflict rather than favor conquer, inmovilism and ensconcing.

Just sayin'.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#128 - 2013-03-22 14:50:17 UTC
Powers Sa wrote:
Malc00nis


Shocked

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
Shadow Cartel
#129 - 2013-03-22 15:20:10 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:


I may have a suggestion... Whatever boost was applied to a lowsec zone, it must expire at some point. Boosts must "travel" from one zone to another, spawning and despawning at a sensible rate, to trigger the type of dynamic conflict that sovereignty prevents.

Rather than "conquerable" space, lowsec should be "temporally exploitable" space, whivh would "deplete" after a time (maybe a couple months?) and thus would naturally trigger conflict rather than favor conquer, inmovilism and ensconcing.

Just sayin'.


Well it is a good suggestion

BALEX, bringing piracy on a whole new level.
Mumtaz Khan
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#130 - 2013-03-23 04:53:19 UTC
Mynnna gets my vote. All of them. Unconditionally. For the greater goon!
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#131 - 2013-03-23 16:09:07 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Zloco Crendraven wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:


I may have a suggestion... Whatever boost was applied to a lowsec zone, it must expire at some point. Boosts must "travel" from one zone to another, spawning and despawning at a sensible rate, to trigger the type of dynamic conflict that sovereignty prevents.

Rather than "conquerable" space, lowsec should be "temporally exploitable" space, whivh would "deplete" after a time (maybe a couple months?) and thus would naturally trigger conflict rather than favor conquer, inmovilism and ensconcing.

Just sayin'.


Well it is a good suggestion


Sort of. The trick with a suggestion like that is awfully similar to the trick involved with the common "why don't moons deplete and moon" suggestion. That trick is that if moons depleted and moved, randomizing what was in ones space, it would literally be better (from a purely economic perspective) to just mine whatever you're given, because it's very, very easy to spend the value of six to twelve months worth of moon production (even a tech moon!) trying to capture one. Remember, despite their value, a Tech moon "only" grosses about 62b per year at the current prices. Now think about the price tag attached to the battle reports from single fights over a single moon that you may have seen in the past. And of course, a campaign to take sov (in its current state) can last months, so by the time you actually capture all those moons you've got your eye on, they're already close to rotation, if they haven't already!

Now, Lowsec has an advantage here, because it tends to lean towards smaller scale conflict, but it's still a factor one must consider carefully. Depending on the value of the boost, it may not trigger the type of dynamic conflict you're hoping for.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#132 - 2013-03-24 11:21:10 UTC
People who aren't involved with 0.0 seem to have unrealistic ideas about the number and value of tech moons.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#133 - 2013-03-24 15:11:41 UTC
You're actually worth voting. :)
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#134 - 2013-03-24 15:45:37 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Malcanis wrote:
People who aren't involved with 0.0 seem to have unrealistic ideas about the number and value of tech moons.


This is so unbelievably true. Fun fact: At current market value, a tech moon is worth around 7.2m per month after fuel costs. At those rates, we'd make the same kind of money if we just setup and ran two ice mining mackinaw accounts in empire 23/7 for every moon we own.

Let that sink in. A tech moon is basically just two Mackinaws running permanently. Blink

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#135 - 2013-03-24 16:32:29 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Let that sink in. A tech moon is basically just two Mackinaws running permanently. Blink

Yeah, but you don't get banned for running tech moons 23.5/7... Twisted

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#136 - 2013-03-24 16:36:58 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Let that sink in. A tech moon is basically just two Mackinaws running permanently. Blink

Yeah, but you don't get banned for running tech moons 23.5/7... Twisted


What Mynna is perhaps too nice to say is that another way of looking at this is that every hi-sec ice belt system is worth between 8-20 tech moons to someone.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#137 - 2013-03-24 16:47:08 UTC
Actually, since ice is infinite and cannot be exhausted, every highsec ice belt system is worth N/2 tech moons, where N is simply the number of miners congregating there.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#138 - 2013-03-24 17:26:30 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Actually, since ice is infinite and cannot be exhausted, every highsec ice belt system is worth N/2 tech moons, where N is simply the number of miners congregating there.


Assuming infinite free labour and a perfectly inelastic ice products market, maybe....

But I was speaking of practical values.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#139 - 2013-03-24 20:25:02 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
People who aren't involved with 0.0 seem to have unrealistic ideas about the number and value of tech moons.


This is so unbelievably true. Fun fact: At current market value, a tech moon is worth around 7.2m per month after fuel costs. At those rates, we'd make the same kind of money if we just setup and ran two ice mining mackinaw accounts in empire 23/7 for every moon we own.

Let that sink in. A tech moon is basically just two Mackinaws running permanently. Blink


I think you meant 7.2b, but yes.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#140 - 2013-03-24 20:36:56 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
People who aren't involved with 0.0 seem to have unrealistic ideas about the number and value of tech moons.


This is so unbelievably true. Fun fact: At current market value, a tech moon is worth around 7.2m per month after fuel costs. At those rates, we'd make the same kind of money if we just setup and ran two ice mining mackinaw accounts in empire 23/7 for every moon we own.

Let that sink in. A tech moon is basically just two Mackinaws running permanently. Blink


I think you meant 7.2b, but yes.


No actually I meant 7.2m, I just meant per hour. Whoops!

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal