These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: Reprocess all the things!

First post First post First post
Author
Marcia en Welle
Doomheim
#881 - 2014-03-21 18:09:38 UTC
Destitute Tehol Beddict wrote:

If there intended goal was to nerf compression why not just change the m3 values of the modules themselves, I mean its not very realistic in the first place.


No one is going to use modules to transport minerals now with a 55% maximum efficiency rate. I don't think you have fully understood this change.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#882 - 2014-03-21 18:10:05 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:


Ya because you can totally limit gate travel in HS. You can have a mining op defense fleet aggress neutrals in HS. Come on man, this whole Null isn't as safe is entirely bogus.

Bubble the gate get a +1 and align out, by the time "enemy" is out of the gate bubble you are aligned, get a Dscan hit warp to safe. Wait for guy to get bored repeat. Or just put a defensive gate camp up and go about your business, because you can freely engage anything that comes into system. Null has much more safety measures available to it than HS, you are living in a dream world if you don't think its true. Hell you can freely shoot back without a care in the world that is a huge safety advantage.

Especially null that is 20 or so systems deep into "Blue Space" You think the guys up in Tenal, or Deklein fear of getting ganked? If they did they wouldn't be out ratting and plexing in Carriers and Supers. Give your head a shake parrot.

Ultimately your complaints come down to Sov mechanics which CCP will not change because doing so will only remove the only publicity this game gets 4K man Tidi brawls.


We lost several hundred ratting ships last month in Deklein last month. Ratting carriers are so easily caught only the stupid use them. Cepters ignore bubbles and warp at 14au/sec. Blops just love a good mining fleet to chew on. A single cloaked neut is enough to shutdown mining in any system.

Highsec you fit up a tanked mack/skiff, go watch a film and let concord do the guarding. You then go and refine the minerals in a station that will never lose access to.

Nobody buys your dross, Highsec is the safest area of space in EVE and is going to rightfully offer less reward than the more risky areas come summer which is only right.
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
#883 - 2014-03-21 18:10:07 UTC
Maybe the proper thing here is for CCP to post (repost?) their vision statement on what system security is supposed to mean, and their first order effects of the differences between high, low, null, and w-space they expect to see. There needs to be arcs in both directions between all spaces that players of all ages decide to take because every region should excel at some things. (And no, Concord alone is not enough for hisec)

I'd also like to see what, exactly, their vision is for retaining new players past the first few months.

There's lots of subscription money available, but if their entire vision is forcing newbros into null within a few weeks of creating their accounts, I don't see how they would expect to retain it with such a narrow available player base.


Examples of design decisions that negatively impact new players asymmetrically is the extra minerals on T1 production, for example. The module refining change here is another thing that really only significantly affects new players.

I agree mining is terrible, but the "fix" to mining has to involve more creativity than "force everyone to null"
Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#884 - 2014-03-21 18:10:47 UTC
Marcia en Welle wrote:
Querns wrote:
Here's a new topic: Compression. In the currently proposed changeset, you need to use a POS in highsec to compress ore. This is good for people with an established corporation and pos infrastructure, but it's a little restrictive to the solo player or the new player, who lacks the standings and the capital to run a POS.

My suggestion, in this regard, is to keep the existing ore compression blueprints, but allow them to be used in standard industrial lines. Alternatively, allow right-click compression to simply function in stations. In the blueprint option, remove the skills needed to use the blueprints and make their PE research values low-to-nonexistent to allow a new player to quickly bootstrap themselves into compressed ore.

This will let new players and solo players more readily produce compressed ore, which, I believe, will quickly become the preferred method to trade minerals in Eve. The POS module for compressing ore should remain, however, to allow people with the necessary wherewithal to produce mining emplacements in areas of space with no stations, allowing them to bend their superior skills and capital into a market advantage.

No thanks, keep compression a proper profession for which you either need a Rorqual or a POS, I would even suggest that the POS module should use the same skills as are necessary for the Rorqual to compress.

I love how Nullseccers quickly switch their stance on their opposition to dumbing things down when it is about to affect their production chains. Just suck it up and deal with it like everyone else is going to have to.


Needing a POS does not make it a profession.
In my own subjective case the worst thing is that you need to have a corp for a POS, i like me uni :)
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#885 - 2014-03-21 18:10:59 UTC
Destitute Tehol Beddict wrote:
If there intended goal was to nerf compression why not just change the m3 values of the modules themselves, I mean its not very realistic in the first place.

If they just targeted the current compression modules for a nerf, we'd just run a script and find the new hotness. It'd be an endless cycle of retaliation until everything in eve is significantly larger than its constituent minerals.

Ripping the bandaid off all at once and saying "reprocessing values for all scrap metal is capped at 55% of its constituent minerals" does the deed in a much more elegant fashion.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Marcia en Welle
Doomheim
#886 - 2014-03-21 18:12:15 UTC
Querns wrote:
So, the solo/new miner should not be able to participate in the mining economy at all until they've trained up Capital Industrial Ships and Industrial Reconfiguration? The proposed changeset is going to make compressed ore the sovereign currency by which minerals are traded, due to the need to run them through a Minmatar T3 station.

No one said that they cannot participate. But there is a difference between participating and being able to do everything straight of the bat.

If compression is made as easy as you suggest, then there will be no point in the Rorqual, and no point in this new POS module.

Also you only need the ore processing skills to level IV to use the rorqual compression blueprints currently, the same should be the case for the POS module too.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#887 - 2014-03-21 18:13:00 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Highsec you fit up a tanked mack/skiff, go watch a film and let concord do the guarding.

funnily enough, i lost at least three tanked macks to ganks exactly this way...

I should buy an Ishtar.

Destitute Tehol Beddict
Binary Trading
#888 - 2014-03-21 18:14:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Destitute Tehol Beddict
Querns wrote:
Destitute Tehol Beddict wrote:
If there intended goal was to nerf compression why not just change the m3 values of the modules themselves, I mean its not very realistic in the first place.

If they just targeted the current compression modules for a nerf, we'd just run a script and find the new hotness. It'd be an endless cycle of retaliation until everything in eve is significantly larger than its constituent minerals.

Ripping the bandaid off all at once and saying "reprocessing values for all scrap metal is capped at 55% of its constituent minerals" does the deed in a much more elegant fashion.


Umm I have a spreadsheet that shows what ALL the modules reprocess into. (I use this everyday) I don't think it would be hard to make min m3 = module m3.

This is a stupid excuse.

Loot Buying service: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4529397#post4529397

Matthew
BloodStar Technologies
#889 - 2014-03-21 18:14:32 UTC
Very interesting changes and certainly something that needed to be looked at given the complete lack of design flexibility offered by the ease by which 100% refines can be reached currently. So generally in support of these changes, but a few points I'd like to pick up:


Skills for POS arrays

Having POS arrays disconnected from the relevant skills seems to be the most inconsistent and undesirable of these changes. Unless you have access to an upgraded outpost, it means that specializing in reprocessing is simply a matter of putting up a POS array rather than investing skill points.

If this is a technical limitation of the existing POS code then guess it's something I can live with for now, but I'd like to see a clear intention that the skills will be applied as/when POS code renovation makes it possible.


Scrapmetal Processing

Can certainly see why this is desirable. The effects on mission runners and mineral supply have already been covered in the thread, but I've not seen much mention of the possible impact on manufacturing demand and market clearance.

There is a potential impact here in terms of the ability of the market to adapt to oversupply of certain produced items. Right now, if someone drops a big sell order of an item at just below mineral cost that massively oversupplies a market, then someone is going to buy that up very quickly and reprocess it back into minerals for a profit. After these changes, that oversupply would pull down prices for longer as it would rely on either local consumption or a bulk trade shipment back out to another region to clear the oversupply.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as the current reprocessing path mutes the supply messaging from the market a bit. But it will be a change in market dynamic that will be interesting to see play out.

Of slightly more concern is the impact it will have on the disposal of loot drops. If this change leads to significantly more loot drops reaching market as items rather than minerals, then this could be detrimental to the manufacturing of those goods (bear in mind that while meta 0 drops were nerfed, other meta loot can be considered a substitute good, especially if prices drop enough). We've seen this before where items are available as both mission/loot drops and via player industry - if the volume coming through the NPC route is significant, then it can damage or completely prevent the viability of the player industry option (think back to the transition of T2 materials from agent rewards to POS manufacture). Would hopefully only impact the rarely used modules, but still not ideal from my point of view.

Rather than an argument against the reprocessing changes, I see this as an argument to reform of loot. My favored solution to this would be to move away from NPCs providing virgin items completely, in favor of the sort of "trade-up" model used by the loyalty store.


Ore/Mineral Compression

I am entirely in favor of compression being done via the "compressed" item types rather than through fortuitously-resourced modules. However, I'm not entirely convinced that just improving the existing Compressed Ores is enough.

While others have correctly identified that the market will adapt to supply the demand for Compressed Ores that will be generated, I'm still concerned about two other consequences of this change:


  1. Once you have reprocessed ore into minerals, there is no way to get it back into a compressed form. This will discourage people from reprocessing ore until the last possible moment to avoid that loss of functionality, making it essential to co-locate refining and manufacturing facilities.

  2. If this means that most trade in minerals occurs as Ores rather than Minerals, it will greatly obfuscate the market value of minerals (which would then need to be derived as a composite from the prices of Ores that supply it), which in turn obfuscates the valuation of everything else in Eve that is composed of minerals.

    This also makes little sense from a physics point of view, and I can't see a desirable game design reason for this restriction.


  3. You can only transport minerals in the ratios defined by the ores.

  4. This will limit the ability to ship the mix of minerals you need, rather than a mix that is imposed by ore compositions and the availability of particular ore types. This could potentially lead to some ore types becoming more valuable than their constituent minerals simply by virtue of having a more favorable mix of minerals for common purposes. While it is true that module-based mineral compression was limited to the ratios defined by the modules, there was far more flexibility in this due to the much larger variety of modules, making it much easier to match supply and demand.

    This is likely to lead to surpluses of some mineral types building up in a given manufacturing location as a result of the mismatch between the ore supply mix and the manufacturing demand. The desired outcome of this excess would be trade between this location and another part of Eve where the ore mix yielded a different surplus. However, with no way to get the mineral back into a compressible form, trade in these mineral surpluses would be discouraged.



What I would like to see to resolve this is the option to compress minerals directly, i.e. add Compressed Tritanium, Compressed Pyerite etc to the list of compressed item types, with compression ratios competitive with the ores.

The compressed ores would likely remain the favored option for bulk transport to take advantage of the better reprocessing available in null for the initial ore reprocess and avoid a second reprocess in the chain. However, I think the compressed mineral types would still have an important role to play in facilitating movements of minerals to offset the limitations of the ore compositions.
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
#890 - 2014-03-21 18:15:50 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Highsec you fit up a tanked mack/skiff, go watch a film and let concord do the guarding.

funnily enough, i lost at least three tanked macks to ganks exactly this way...


Arms always wins the arms vs armor race, hisec mining is no different. You can buy a crap-ton of catalysts or taloses or whatever for a lot less than the value of what you're ganking.
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#891 - 2014-03-21 18:15:52 UTC
Marcia en Welle wrote:
Querns wrote:
So, the solo/new miner should not be able to participate in the mining economy at all until they've trained up Capital Industrial Ships and Industrial Reconfiguration? The proposed changeset is going to make compressed ore the sovereign currency by which minerals are traded, due to the need to run them through a Minmatar T3 station.

No one said that they cannot participate. But there is a difference between participating and being able to do everything straight of the bat.

If compression is made as easy as you suggest, then there will be no point in the Rorqual, and no point in this new POS module.

Also you only need the ore processing skills to level IV to use the rorqual compression blueprints currently, the same should be the case for the POS module too.

Rorquals still pass the best mining bonuses, and they're still eminently useful as a logistics vessel. I have two rorqual pilots, myself, and I have never used them for compressing. I use them all the time to service POS in remote, stationless systems, and to erect POS because of their ability to cloak.

CCP also said, in the devblog, that they recognize that the rorqual is having its niche intruded upon, and that they are punting on the issue for now. They were up front about it and are willing to endure the pain point to get the much-needed change through.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Andrea Keuvo
Rusty Pricks
#892 - 2014-03-21 18:16:25 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

However, if you increase the base yield of Minmatar stations, you easily run into the situation where lowsec builders cannot compete with nullsec builders. To be frank, lowsec has similar levels of risks as nullsec. The efforts to build ships there is roughly the same. So, with little increased effort, and little increased risk, I don't see the justification in increasing reward.

This is not at all true. A lowsec builder builds in station: he is utterly invulnerable and can never lose his station or have his bpos locked up. He also has a factory/refinery: perfect refines, 50 slots. It's the latter that nullsec has been utterly unable to compete with, as nullsec has no factory/refineries.

Even if minmatar refines are boosted, a lowsec station is better than an un-upgraded minmatar station because the minmatar station doesn't have any factory slots (it only has 5, making it impossible to produce caps well there). You'd have to be building at a pos, and placing yourself at greater risk of losing your baby ships (something a lowsec producer can never lose).

In addition, in null, you can lose your build station: even if I spend 60 billion making an improved factory/refinery I can build in-station, I can lose that station and have all my caps/cap bpos locked up. No lowsec producer ever faces that risk. The lowsec producer simply moves in and doesn't have to work for his space, pay to upgrade it, defend it, and risk losing it. Nullsec producers must do all four. It's nonsense that they face "little increased effort" and "little increased risk", as a lowsec builder needs to expend no effort and suffer no risk.


You bring up some good points.

1.) Don't get me started on the imbalances of the Sov system. Ill admit that the current system makes it very risky for small entities holding sov, which is why nullsec production will generally be found in the "Safer" homes of larger coalition entities. From such positions, the risk of loss is pretty much identical to that of a lowsec producer. Stop the propaganda and be honestly, unless you are in a small alliance/coalition, this is a very small risk your BPO's get locked up in a station.

2.) I did not realize the nullsec Minmatar stations only have 5 MFG lines. Even upgraded, you aren't going to have too many MFG lines. This is a legitimate reason to boost Minmatar station refining. To be honest though, minmatar stations are primarily built FOR their refining potential. It makes sense they should refine better than other stations, I just don't know where that level should be. They are regularly upgraded to Tier 1 stations, and I firmly believe that the POS Intensive refinery should refine better than the Tier 1 Minmatar Outpost. I like the 54% POS, 53% Tier1 Minmatar balance, and would recommend reducing the efficiency of "Other" outposts rather than increasing the efficiency of the Minmatar ones.


Also, I wouldn't assume that nullsec cap builders will lower their prices and drive lowsec builders out of the market. Why not leave prices at lowsec build level and just take the extra profit?
Matthew
BloodStar Technologies
#893 - 2014-03-21 18:16:53 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
One thing though, I'm concerned about compression in highsec needing a POS. The issue is that when you're transporting to a pos, you can't outsource: I have to do the hauling myself instead of courier contracts or the like. That puts a big dampner on the ability of compression to get done and done well, which has a real risk of throwing wrenches in the gears of nullsec industry as compression just can't keep up. I think it would make more sense for compression to be a station activity (though in station perhaps it does take time).


I'm not so keen on putting compression into stations, one of the things I like about these changes is how it provides actual benefits for using the more vulnerable in-space facilities in high-sec. The sort of hands-off level of outsourcing you are talking about would be better served by buying the compressed ore directly.

My concern with throughput for high-sec compression is more about the availability of moons in relevant areas of high-sec. My preferred solution to this would be a personal deployable for compression. Much smaller cargo than the compression array and a non-zero reprocessing time, so that the POS module retains an edge, but with the advantage that it's much easier for players to get involved and scale up capacity to the level that's required.

I'd be inclined to make it not deployable within 150km of an asteroid, to prevent it messing with the dynamics of hauling at the mining-op stage (and to leave a window for the Rorqual to have that impact if it is ever changed such that being on-grid with the miners is viable), though it could still form part of a mining op as a stop-off between the belt and the station.

Sure, it still won't mean it is worth YOUR time to compress the ore, but then it isn't worth your time to mine it in the first place and that hasn't stopped you so far Blink

Weaselior wrote:

Today I plan to work out exactly how many freighterloads of hauling people need to do to a pos to compress reasonable amounts of minerals, I have a sneaking suspicion its something obscene though since ore is bulky as all hell.


Probably will be an obscene number, though no more obscene than the amount of hauling that is currently done to get that ore from the belt to a station to begin with, and that seems to get done without any issue.
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#894 - 2014-03-21 18:17:08 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Highsec you fit up a tanked mack/skiff, go watch a film and let concord do the guarding.

funnily enough, i lost at least three tanked macks to ganks exactly this way...

Fly a skiff instead. They can hit 80k EHP, making them impervious to casual ganking. Sure, a concentrated overkill force could still take you down, but that would only happen if you were deliberately being targeted because you were being obnoxious, perhaps in an out of game forum.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Marcia en Welle
Doomheim
#895 - 2014-03-21 18:19:02 UTC
Destitute Tehol Beddict wrote:
Querns wrote:
Destitute Tehol Beddict wrote:
If there intended goal was to nerf compression why not just change the m3 values of the modules themselves, I mean its not very realistic in the first place.

If they just targeted the current compression modules for a nerf, we'd just run a script and find the new hotness. It'd be an endless cycle of retaliation until everything in eve is significantly larger than its constituent minerals.

Ripping the bandaid off all at once and saying "reprocessing values for all scrap metal is capped at 55% of its constituent minerals" does the deed in a much more elegant fashion.


Umm I have a spreadsheet that shows what ALL the modules reprocess into. (I use this everyday) I don't think it would be hard to make min m3 = module m3.

This is a stupid excuse.

Nope it Is not a stupid excuse. CCP have already followed this exact method you suggest to nerf compression ratios before, and if they do it again then module's will just balloon in size for little reason.

It was never intended that modules where meant to be refined in this way for transport, and as soon as CCP figured out what was happening they have taken numerous steps to try and rectify the situation over the years. They have done as you suggest and increased the m3 of module, and they even bought out a brand new ship (rorqual) to try and encourage people to use that instead.

Unless they balloon modules to ridiculous sizes, then they will never fix the problem with mineral compression. With this change though they have finally nailed it once and for all.



Matalino
#896 - 2014-03-21 18:19:58 UTC
Querns wrote:
Here's a new topic: Compression. In the currently proposed changeset, you need to use a POS in highsec to compress ore. This is good for people with an established corporation and pos infrastructure, but it's a little restrictive to the solo player or the new player, who lacks the standings and the capital to run a POS..
Market forces will ensure that there is a profitable, but not excessive margin for compressing ore in high sec. While it takes some effort to run a high sec POS, there are plenty of people who do it for invention. The margins will be compressed on compressed ore until it is hardly worth the effort.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#897 - 2014-03-21 18:20:17 UTC
Querns wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Highsec you fit up a tanked mack/skiff, go watch a film and let concord do the guarding.

funnily enough, i lost at least three tanked macks to ganks exactly this way...

Fly a skiff instead. They can hit 80k EHP, making them impervious to casual ganking. Sure, a concentrated overkill force could still take you down, but that would only happen if you were deliberately being targeted because you were being obnoxious, perhaps in an out of game forum.

the new order takes on skiffs and even orcas. i know this first hand because i'm not always on the receiving side.

I should buy an Ishtar.

Destitute Tehol Beddict
Binary Trading
#898 - 2014-03-21 18:23:41 UTC
Marcia en Welle wrote:
Destitute Tehol Beddict wrote:
Querns wrote:
Destitute Tehol Beddict wrote:
If there intended goal was to nerf compression why not just change the m3 values of the modules themselves, I mean its not very realistic in the first place.

If they just targeted the current compression modules for a nerf, we'd just run a script and find the new hotness. It'd be an endless cycle of retaliation until everything in eve is significantly larger than its constituent minerals.

Ripping the bandaid off all at once and saying "reprocessing values for all scrap metal is capped at 55% of its constituent minerals" does the deed in a much more elegant fashion.


Umm I have a spreadsheet that shows what ALL the modules reprocess into. (I use this everyday) I don't think it would be hard to make min m3 = module m3.

This is a stupid excuse.

Nope it Is not a stupid excuse. CCP have already followed this exact method you suggest to nerf compression ratios before, and if they do it again then module's will just balloon in size for little reason.

It was never intended that modules where meant to be refined in this way for transport, and as soon as CCP figured out what was happening they have taken numerous steps to try and rectify the situation over the years. They have done as you suggest and increased the m3 of module, and they even bought out a brand new ship (rorqual) to try and encourage people to use that instead.

Unless they balloon modules to ridiculous sizes, then they will never fix the problem with mineral compression. With this change though they have finally nailed it once and for all.





The Mineral M3 = Module M3 (for all modules) There is no room for compression here. They could have done this if they wanted to.

Loot Buying service: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4529397#post4529397

Mario Putzo
#899 - 2014-03-21 18:24:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Marcia en Welle wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
Its funny seeing the regular Goon posting crew being the only ones calling this a good change. Mittens must have sent a ping out this morning.

Actually it is a much needed change, and any impartial person can see that null sec should confer some advantage, as should low sec and npc null sec.

The only thing I would say is that the scrap metal nerf is a bit too heavy handed, and also the POS modules should require skills to be used.

I just love the double standards though, these sov holders are so quick to tell everyone else to suck it up, and then at the same time cry when something is going to affect their production chains.

A slight nerf to compression is a small price to pay for this big buff, along with the previous big buff to ore mineral content.


There is no reason at all to make these changes. It only serves one purpose. Pull people out of highsec and lowsec and put them into nullsec. That is it.

There is no economic benefit to any of this, there is no gameplay benefit to any of this, and they are making a ship that takes a long while to get into effectively redundant outside of a clone boat.

What problems do you think this changes in the game? Other than encouraging taking ore to null refining it and the carting it back to Jita. That is the ONLY benefit, it doesn't change anything about nullsec mining/refining.

If you want to promote mining in null, nerf plexing and passive moon goo farming to levels that make mining appealing as a source of isk generation. Until you do that nothing changes.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#900 - 2014-03-21 18:24:39 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
You bring up some good points.

1.) Don't get me started on the imbalances of the Sov system. Ill admit that the current system makes it very risky for small entities holding sov, which is why nullsec production will generally be found in the "Safer" homes of larger coalition entities. From such positions, the risk of loss is pretty much identical to that of a lowsec producer. Stop the propaganda and be honestly, unless you are in a small alliance/coalition, this is a very small risk your BPO's get locked up in a station.

2.) I did not realize the nullsec Minmatar stations only have 5 MFG lines. Even upgraded, you aren't going to have too many MFG lines. This is a legitimate reason to boost Minmatar station refining. To be honest though, minmatar stations are primarily built FOR their refining potential. It makes sense they should refine better than other stations, I just don't know where that level should be. They are regularly upgraded to Tier 1 stations, and I firmly believe that the POS Intensive refinery should refine better than the Tier 1 Minmatar Outpost. I like the 54% POS, 53% Tier1 Minmatar balance, and would recommend reducing the efficiency of "Other" outposts rather than increasing the efficiency of the Minmatar ones.


1) The largest alliance (at the time) got butchered like a hog only a few months ago. Nothing in 0.0 is guearanteed: while GSF is relatively secure for the moment, it also was relatively secure when it was an ally of the old Northern Coilition (which collapsed) and our capital was sieged, and it was relatively secure in its old incarnation as Goonswarm when it collapsed completely in a light wind. Just because we've put a great deal of effort into securing ourselves doesn't make us invulnerable - nor does it justify nerfing sov 0.0, which requires far more effort and requires placing far more at risk to enter or hold than lowsec. A sov 0.0 capital producer is far more at risk than a lowsec producer who is never at risk. You'd think the BPOs would be safe and only the minerals/caps would be at risk, but well IRC managed to lose all theirs once.

2) There is no justification for a system that must be built at great expense (and risk, the egg can die), paid for, defended, and that can be lost to be inferior to any npc outpost. There is no justification for a lowseccer to have a station that is strictly better than an outpost. Yes, lowsec will no longer have its absolute superiority over sov null (which has never had a 100% refinery with meaningful amounts of slots). Anyone with an outpost in 0.0 will be able to equal a lowsec producer. They will have the option of spending huge amounts of money and take on greater risk to outcompete (and anyone using those 60% refineries will be building in a pos, at vast risk compared to a station where your build can't die, or moving uncompressed minerals to another station, a huge expense and risk lowsec doesn't need to do).

You're asking that your risk-free effort-free station outcompete sov 0.0. Thats nuts.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.