These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why is there no way for us to attack supply lines in eve?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
James 420
EVE Corporation 98188875
#521 - 2013-06-01 19:44:12 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


CCP want null to be 99% self sufficient.

Last month more JF died than freighters. Around 45% of these deaths were in lowsec/0.0.

Not exactly invincible are they?

Learn to read, CCP want null to be 99% self sufficient in volume.
After checking the first eve kill pages for last month you are obviously pulling that 45% number out of your ass, they are more like 10% and none of them are in npc corp, also most of them are getting reimbursed.

Proud enforcer of 420 BLAZE IT
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#522 - 2013-06-01 19:44:38 UTC
James 420 wrote:
Ahahaha, "still the plan" [citation needed] also more 90% of that whiteboard is not implemented yet or completely different so what's your point?
The point is that null being 99% independent by industry volume is still the design goal, and that the 5+ years that plan is meant to cover isn't even half-over.

Stonecrusher Mortlock wrote:
Why CAN'T that change work?
Because in spite of evidence to the contrary, players tend to play smart. If you can get something for free and with no effort, you're not going to work hard and pay a lot for it.

Quote:
If it was JUST has hard to ship it to null, as it was to just build it in null, Why would you not do it in null?
Sure, but that's just it: the whole point is that it can't be as hard to build a ship in highsec and then import it as it is to just build it in null unless we turn all of highsec into nullsec. Highsec (and NPC stations) comes with some inherent benefits that can't be buffed past because they sit on either the 0 or the infinite end of the spectrum — you can't buff costs to be less than 0; you can't buff availability to be greater than infinite.

This means that highsec must in and of itself balance its benefits against its costs — some things will inherently be better than null because that's just how highsec works, but to counterbalance that, some thing must be much at least as much worse than what null has to offer, otherwise (as we have right now) highsec will just straight up be better in every way. Solely buffing null will, at best, only create parity in certain areas, but not all, which means that there is still no reason to use those buffed null services.

Right now, there is no choice. Simply buffing null still leaves us with no choice unless we utterly break to game in order to provide “less than 0” and “more than infinite” options for the null industrialists.
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#523 - 2013-06-01 19:49:43 UTC
Stonecrusher Mortlock wrote:
Alphea Abbra wrote:
Stonecrusher Mortlock wrote:


Why CAN'T that change work?

If it was JUST has hard to ship it to null, as it was to just build it in null, Why would you not do it in null?

You would have the option to do ether.




you lose nothing, you gain the ability to DO null industry or still ship it in.


If you choose to ship it in you have the risk of it getting attacked.

If you choose to build it in null it has the same risk of getting attacked.



Why would you choose to do one of the other?
For that to be an actual question, HS industry would have to be worse than today, and 0.0 industry would have to be better.
Or, of course, something like removing freighters and jumpfreighters from HS, and any jump-capable ship from LS.
I freely acknowledge that, if you make something so suicide-inducing that it makes people stop it or quit the game, everything that is not that is by comparison better. Not better by default, but better by comparison.
I would think CCP wants a game with active customers, though, so that's not an option.
Any other questions?




Stonecrusher Mortlock wrote:
Let me get this right.


Absolutely None of the 1000's of players in high sec would be willing to take there places?


Now who's mad hatter insane sounding?



Your honestly wanting me to believe that with least amount of added risk to your high sec supply lines you will just give up and quit?



You know what i think if this change happened you would suck it up and adapt to it.


But even if i'm wrong, and you will leave because of it, there's others to replace you.


Your quote failed to respond to my response. Smile
Furthermore, even if you mistook your response as applicable to my response, do you think CCP would want that?
Check this out: http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance/memberCount It's a list of alliances in EVE, sorted by members, and try to see how many of the top20 alliances do not have 0.0 sov. Now, imagine the face of any CCP employee if those accounts unsubbed.
ALONE FOR THAT REASON is your argument terrible and dysfunctional.
You also, as said, failed to address anything from my first post.
James 420
EVE Corporation 98188875
#524 - 2013-06-01 19:50:42 UTC
Tippia wrote:
James 420 wrote:
Ahahaha, "still the plan" [citation needed] also more 90% of that whiteboard is not implemented yet or completely different so what's your point?
The point is that null being 99% independent by industry volume is still the design goal, and that the 5+ years that plan is meant to cover isn't even half-over.

Like I said 3 times now, I agree with 99% VOLUME.
Shall we look at the other points of the whiteboard like :
- Moving large volume should be a group effort
- Weak spot for big groups
- Bigger ships/fleet travel slower
Oh boy I can wait for this. Roll

Proud enforcer of 420 BLAZE IT
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#525 - 2013-06-01 19:50:53 UTC
Four measly days and already 20+ pages .. logistics and null viability must truly have developed into more than a pet peeve for folks around here. About bloody time!
Malcanis wrote:
No seriously though, Hi-sec has approximately 30 times as many build slots as sov null. 0.0 absolutely relies on importing goods from hi-sec because there simply isn't the industrial capacity to produce the ships and modules required.
...

Never had a problem finding an open line in high-sec which leads me to believe that most of those slots are unused for most the time (perhaps with hubs +1 jump being the exceptions).

So ask CCP to launch a spider (or intern, whichever is faster) to determined how many slots are idling most of the time, remove them from high-sec and distribute them primarily in null-sec with a smattering in low-sec.

Need for and extent of changes will depend a lot on what sovereignty ends up looking like. If 'patrolling ones space requirement' remains a topic for delusional minds such as mine and holding ones claim can be done by blotting out the suns every so often then you will need to either accept the broken cyno trains or make null able to compete with high/low in sheer volume.

The sov war (ie. CCP vs. Eve debate) will be bloody, protracted and ugly in the extreme .. should be the greatest spectacle since the crucifiction of that guy from the middle-east who somehow had Norse genes (blond, blue eyes Big smile)!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#526 - 2013-06-01 19:52:17 UTC
James 420 wrote:

Learn to read, CCP want null to be 99% self sufficient in volume.
After checking the first eve kill pages for last month you are obviously pulling that 45% number out of your ass, they are more like 10% and none of them are in npc corp, also most of them are getting reimbursed.


Page one =

24 JF,14 of which were in low sec/0.0 on page one. Thats more than 50%.

Over the entire month its 45%.

None of the cargo they carry gets reimbursed. Several hundred billion in cargo was lost.

James 420
EVE Corporation 98188875
#527 - 2013-06-01 19:58:48 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
James 420 wrote:

Learn to read, CCP want null to be 99% self sufficient in volume.
After checking the first eve kill pages for last month you are obviously pulling that 45% number out of your ass, they are more like 10% and none of them are in npc corp, also most of them are getting reimbursed.


Page one =

24 JF,14 of which were in low sec/0.0 on page one. Thats more than 50%.

Over the entire month its 45%.

None of the cargo they carry gets reimbursed. Several hundred billion in cargo was lost.



Page three =

0 JF killed in null. So it's 0% so jf can't die.

Over the entire month its 10%.

Wow cargo aren't reimbursed? I think I'll cry.
Your logic bro.

Proud enforcer of 420 BLAZE IT
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#528 - 2013-06-01 20:11:24 UTC
James 420 wrote:
Like I said 3 times now, I agree with 99% VOLUME.
Shall we look at the other points of the whiteboard like :
- Moving large volume should be a group effort
- Weak spot for big groups
- Bigger ships/fleet travel slower
…and all of these are true. The last point could use a few more tweaks, but got a big whack with the jump bridge restriction. So your wait is over.

Quote:
Wow cargo aren't reimbursed? I think I'll cry.
Since it means your claim is incorrect, you probably should…
James 420
EVE Corporation 98188875
#529 - 2013-06-01 20:16:21 UTC
Tippia wrote:

Quote:
Wow cargo aren't reimbursed? I think I'll cry.
Since it means your claim is incorrect, you probably should…

I said most jf are getting reimbursed which is true, I never said hulls AND cargo are getting reimbursed, I think you are confused, your cyno jumps must be acting on your brain or something.

Proud enforcer of 420 BLAZE IT
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#530 - 2013-06-01 20:19:18 UTC
James 420 wrote:
I said most jf are getting reimbursed which is true
…based on?

Quote:
I never said hulls AND cargo are getting reimbursed
…so they're not really getting reimbursed at all, then, and represent pretty significant losses no matter what. It most certainly doesn't make them invincible.
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#531 - 2013-06-01 20:24:26 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
James 420 wrote:

Learn to read, CCP want null to be 99% self sufficient in volume.
After checking the first eve kill pages for last month you are obviously pulling that 45% number out of your ass, they are more like 10% and none of them are in npc corp, also most of them are getting reimbursed.


Page one =

24 JF,14 of which were in low sec/0.0 on page one. Thats more than 50%.

Over the entire month its 45%.

None of the cargo they carry gets reimbursed. Several hundred billion in cargo was lost.
I know that the CFC for some time has been reputed to have a more generous SRP than the rest of us, so it might be true that your JF's get reimbursed, but I have yet to hear of anyone else who, on alliance or coalition levels, would reimburse JF's unless they were used for strategic purposes.
I've seen the question of whether to reimburse grey freigher alts dying on blue POS's during major ops...
Point being, reimbursing even the hull is not a given.
James 420
EVE Corporation 98188875
#532 - 2013-06-01 20:25:17 UTC
Tippia wrote:
…based on?
…so they're not really getting reimbursed at all, then, and represent pretty significant losses no matter what. It most certainly doesn't make them invincible.


Are you trying to say that people who lose a jf (HOW PLEASE MAKE A TUTORIAL) should get their cargo reimbursed? Ahahahahaahahaha, I seriously hope CCP don't listen to bears like you.
The only significants losses are bpos, everything else is "fine", but you shouldn't lose a jf ever.

Proud enforcer of 420 BLAZE IT
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#533 - 2013-06-01 20:28:21 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:


And all the "sky is falling" headless-chicken-running in the world isn't going to make convoys a deathtrap. You'll just have to spend a few people-hours scouting and defending, just like you keep telling folks to do in hisec.


That's nonsense, how do you scout logged off fleets of whelp canes/tornadoes?./ How do you scout awoxxers'spies? There would be significant loses, and you know what happens when an in-game activity becomes too costly?

People stop doing it.

One of the things that would happen is that Wormholes ( the rare highsec/low sec to null, but more commonly wormholes with a null sec static) would become GOLD.

What happens when something becomes? The large alliances find a way to take them (and pay for access to the direct route holes they can't take because they are random.

Null transport Commerce would simply become wormhole based, which would suck the life out of many a wormhole as large alliance undertake to horde them like tech moons. How would the wormhole alliances (which tend to be small) survive this other than simply becoming pets of the big boys?

You people really aren't thinking this one through despite Mal point out situation after situation, game mechanic after game mechanic that would prevent the ideas presented by this thread from happening in the current age. Wormholes, population, alts, Alpha ships, extreme metagaming etc etc.

The discussion is moot I think because CCP would never be that dumb, but it's still annoying to see people resist reason in a discussion. It's not about preserving advantages (I'm not a logistics guy or alliance big wig), it's about (for me) not supporting a stupid pie in the sky idea that could never work the way it's intended to.


All very good reasons to encourage more meta game and corp level activity (and counters!) instead of just focusing on 2 minute instant deliveries.

Being apart of a discussion does not mean we are resisting it. In fact, what you are doing is resisting it by inadvertently listing reasons WHY we don't need jump freighters.

Funny how that works.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#534 - 2013-06-01 20:28:36 UTC
Alphea Abbra wrote:
I know that the CFC for some time has been reputed to have a more generous SRP than the rest of us, so it might be true that your JF's get reimbursed, but I have yet to hear of anyone else who, on alliance or coalition levels, would reimburse JF's unless they were used for strategic purposes.
I've seen the question of whether to reimburse grey freigher alts dying on blue POS's during major ops...
Point being, reimbursing even the hull is not a given.


We do not reimburse JF losses unless they were taking part in a fleet op. I do not know of any alliance that will pay up on someone losing a JF to a trap.
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#535 - 2013-06-01 20:34:58 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Alphea Abbra wrote:
I know that the CFC for some time has been reputed to have a more generous SRP than the rest of us, so it might be true that your JF's get reimbursed, but I have yet to hear of anyone else who, on alliance or coalition levels, would reimburse JF's unless they were used for strategic purposes.
I've seen the question of whether to reimburse grey freigher alts dying on blue POS's during major ops...
Point being, reimbursing even the hull is not a given.


We do not reimburse JF losses unless they were taking part in a fleet op. I do not know of any alliance that will pay up on someone losing a JF to a trap.
Then you, frankly, worded it badly.
Now that " James 420 " thing is using your first statement as saying that lost freighters and JF's are reimbursed.
Shame on you. Cool
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#536 - 2013-06-01 20:35:03 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
James 420 wrote:


so what's your point?


CCP want null to be 99% self sufficient.

James 420 wrote:
1 out of 200 jf is getting killed I bet they are the smartest jf pilots


Last month more JF died than freighters. Around 45% of these deaths were in lowsec/0.0.

Not exactly invincible are they?


Look at you, citing actual data at an obviousforum troll alt.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#537 - 2013-06-01 20:35:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
James 420 wrote:
Are you trying to say that people who lose a jf should get their cargo reimbursed?
No, I'm saying that…
Tippia wrote:
James 420 wrote:
I said most jf are getting reimbursed which is true
…based on?
Quote:
I never said hulls AND cargo are getting reimbursed
…so they're not really getting reimbursed at all, then, and represent pretty significant losses no matter what. It most certainly doesn't make them invincible.
…neither of which you could address and had to try to inject a strawman in a failed attempt at changing the subject.
So we've established that you have no basis for your claim; that they're not being reimbursed; and that they're certainly not invincible.

Murk Paradox wrote:
All very good reasons to encourage more meta game and corp level activity (and counters!) instead of just focusing on 2 minute instant deliveries.
That's probably why most of us are looking to address the issues that hinder that kind of meta game rather than focus on such (largely irrelevant) second-order issues as JFs since any problem there might be with those will go away when the core issues are solved.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#538 - 2013-06-01 20:40:13 UTC
James 420 wrote:


Page three =

0 JF killed in null. So it's 0% so jf can't die.

Over the entire month its 10%.

Wow cargo aren't reimbursed? I think I'll cry.
Your logic bro.


36 JF killed on page 3.

16 of them died in low sec/0.0
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#539 - 2013-06-01 20:40:53 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Look at you, citing actual data at an obviousforum troll alt.
I thought you needed a badge for it to be obvious...
Like those "CCP" people, wearing badges all over the place, yet NEVER BEING ONLINE INGAME!?!?!?!?
I put it to you, that those with "CCP" or "GM" or "ISD" or "CSM" badges are, in fact, forum alts.
The majority probably doesn't even have paid subscriptions running.
Pffft, what do those guys know?
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#540 - 2013-06-01 21:01:16 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:


The greatest problem with null sec is the people in null sec.




So despite all the factual, numerical data provided that prove otherwise, you're going with "Grr! Nullseccers!"?

OK that's made my job a tiny bit easier, since it means that you actually think things like a 30:1 slot disparity are less important than some huge generalisation about tens of thousands of people you don't even know. People like that should be treated like people who say "poor people are poor because they're lazy": laughed at when it doesn't matter, ignored when it does.




You did say you wouldn't take your BPOs out of the invincible empire stations.

So if you are still going to be going to highsec for industry... using the markets which would still be saturated from highsec industrialists wouldn't really change your views on nullsec regardless of how many slots are added.

You said you are a penny pincher and greedy, so you will be obviously following the market. And that won't be changing any time soon.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.