These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Building better Worlds

First post First post First post
Author
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1481 - 2014-04-22 16:09:49 UTC
You surely know it best. I don't see how my point (make 00 industry better and more competitive, while keeping High sec intact and competitive) is bad, but you are probably right. Roll

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Kadl
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1482 - 2014-04-22 16:10:51 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
Urziel99 wrote:
Are you going to dispute that moon mining, gas harvesting, drug manufacturing, ore mining (when it happens), exploration, ratting, plexing, salvaging and npc missions are massively and overwhelmingly more profitable in nullsec?

Are you also going to dispute that in order to be "massively and overwhelmingly profitable" in S&I that I have to put orders of magnitude more isk on the table than any of those activities in nullsec?

I await your meager defense with baited breath.


I won't wait for Malcanis to answer. I can do it.

First we need to separate out what is actually S&I and what is not. ... I think they call that a Straw-Man argument. I could be wrong.


A straw man argument is made when you covertly try to replace an argument with a different argument which is easier for you to argue. The argument being made is clearly that null sec has a large variety of profitable activities. Obviously this is a much harder argument to disagree with and therefore you have chosen to ignore it.

Soldarius wrote:
https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/reactions/

Moon mining, moon goo reactions, gas harvesting, and drug mfg, can only be done in 0.3 space or lower. Fullerenes (precursors to hybrid polymers) can only be gathered in w-space. So they cannot be compared to hisec except in strictly by profitability or lack thereof.

...

The primary industry in nulsec is supercapital/titan production. For years this has depended on mineral compression to function. But this summer mineral compression is getting the big ol' nerf bat.


Actually there is an easy comparison for moon mining, goo, reactions, and drug manufacturing. High Sec has a 0 for profitability in these areas and null/low sec have greater than 0 profitability. That is the point being made, that there are activities in null which are strictly more profitable then high sec. Yet again you decide to ignore the argument in order to make a more effective argument for yourself.

The comments for compression ignore CCP's current plans and intentions with ore compression.

"CCP Ytterbium" wrote:
The solution is to improve compression ratios ... while tweaking the compressed ore volumes to make it competitive with current modules like the 425mm Railgun I for instance.


Your arguments on mining are interesting, particularly since CCP has tried to buff null sec mining. The sov war losses are often overblown, particularly for massive alliances in their deep blue territory, but at least there is an argument there.

Soldarius wrote:
Now tell me again how much better nulsec industry is compared to hisec.


After your massive wall of text you still missed the original point. Urziel99 never claimed that null sec industry was better than high sec. He claimed that many other activities were. The point of the argument is to ask why null sec must also be better in industry if it has so many other good activities. I think it is a valid question, although I am feeling a bit undecided about the answer right now. For me it is obvious that null sec industry should be improved. But should null sec be better at everything? Should null sec be so much better at S&I that only they can produce many items for a profit? Perhaps the answer is yes, but you do not make a convincing argument when you ignore the issues.
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1483 - 2014-04-22 16:20:32 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
You surely know it best. I don't see how my point (make 00 industry better and more competitive, while keeping High sec intact and competitive) is bad, but you are probably right. Roll

The proposed changes do just this.

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

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#1484 - 2014-04-22 16:29:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Corraidhin Farsaidh
Weaselior wrote:


that is a problem, and one that is rightly being fixed. highsec will have its risk-free production, nullsec will have its riskier but more profitable production.



I still don't see why nullsec industry should be buffed. Unlimited slots on pos will already give the stations in null a massive bonus, and just how risky is it to manufacture stuff deep in goon space? Or any other large sov alliance? It must be pretty safe there for you to be able to offer out systems to rent otherwise nobody would rent there for fear of losing their investment.

Weaselior wrote:


I'm not, because I like to do industry and would like to be able to do it in nullsec, build up industrial zones, and create much better gameplay than the current "make courier contracts from jita to factory, install bazillion jobs, make courier contract back, list on market, repeat"

industry should be profitable and doable in null. large amounts of it will continue to be in highsec because that's where jita and the risk-free industry is. but at last nullsec will not be hobbled by having entire regions with less factory slots than a single highsec station and other indefensible crippling disadvantages. that will create much more vibrant gameplay in nullsec as there becomes more to do than rat and kill ratters, and take ratting and moon mining space.


If hisec industry is perceived as risk free and taking so much profit from nullsec then why not gank the afk freighters that are feeding the cycle you describe for risk free industry. The vibrant gameplay you describe as going to nullsec will be at the expense of the other areas. Will you ever transport goods into and out of null when you can just produce and sell them in situ? The gameplay comes from the need to move things around, to gather resources from disparate sources, from having to either defend your resources in null or outperform your competitors in hisec.allowing everything to be done better in null will destroy that dynamic. The large alliances in null will simply get even more rich and even more insular. Will you even bother with burn Jita when you can outperform the trade hubs locally?

The industrial zones you describe in null will kill hisec dead. How could hisec ever compete with nullsec buffed industrial zones? Destroying the dynamic between the security sectiors in this way can only be harmful to the game.

I believe that the S&I changes proposed are needed and look forward to them. I think they will benefit null as much if not more than hisec/losec already. I completely disagree that null needs S&I buffs on top of this. Hisec should remain the S&I centre to encourage the movement of materials players and goods.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1485 - 2014-04-22 16:32:00 UTC
Querns wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
You surely know it best. I don't see how my point (make 00 industry better and more competitive, while keeping High sec intact and competitive) is bad, but you are probably right. Roll

The proposed changes do just this.


It is not the case. If it was the case, these changes wouldn't happen. Blink

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1486 - 2014-04-22 16:37:22 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Querns wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
You surely know it best. I don't see how my point (make 00 industry better and more competitive, while keeping High sec intact and competitive) is bad, but you are probably right. Roll

The proposed changes do just this.


It is not the case. If it was the case, these changes wouldn't happen. Blink

Highsec retains its huge volume and safety advantage. Sure, some nullsec producers will be able to outcompete some markets, but the volume nullsec can put out pales in comparison to demand and highsec's current industrial output. Low-cost nullsec goods will barely impact demand at all.

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

Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1487 - 2014-04-22 16:39:07 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Querns wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
You surely know it best. I don't see how my point (make 00 industry better and more competitive, while keeping High sec intact and competitive) is bad, but you are probably right. Roll

The proposed changes do just this.


It is not the case. If it was the case, these changes wouldn't happen. Blink


bra, when a new player wanted to research a BPO, what were they told when they asked about doing it anywhere in empire... and what did the queues look like. this is a case of things being made available in more places to everyone, and more advantageous for players who go deeper into the game.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#1488 - 2014-04-22 16:41:55 UTC
Kadl wrote:

After your massive wall of text you still missed the original point. Urziel99 never claimed that null sec industry was better than high sec. He claimed that many other activities were. The point of the argument is to ask why null sec must also be better in industry if it has so many other good activities. I think it is a valid question, although I am feeling a bit undecided about the answer right now. For me it is obvious that null sec industry should be improved. But should null sec be better at everything? Should null sec be so much better at S&I that only they can produce many items for a profit? Perhaps the answer is yes, but you do not make a convincing argument when you ignore the issues.


This is my point but put much more succint.

Many activities are already much more profitable in null and rightly so, however each area *needs* something that it is 'best' at to keep the areas competitive and provide reason to move between them. If null is buffed to be so much better at everything then hisec turns into a waiting room for new players marking time until they meet whichever alliances pre-requisites and losec becomes nothing more than a waypoint on the way to said chosen alliance.

rather than buff null in S&I I would actually leave hisec as the S&I powerhouse and buff losec in say moon goo reactions to give losec a reason to exist. As weaselior pointed out this is a game, and each area of thre game serves different playstyles. These should always have a place to exist otherwise you start to exclude groups of players. This can only be bad for the game.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1489 - 2014-04-22 16:43:08 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

I still don't see why nullsec industry should be buffed. Unlimited slots on pos will already give the stations in null a massive bonus, and just how risky is it to manufacture stuff deep in goon space? Or any other large sov alliance? It must be pretty safe there for you to be able to offer out systems to rent otherwise nobody would rent there for fear of losing their investment.


The very basic problem with this post: transport isn't free. The bigger one: nobody does any of this industry, so nobody is actually placing stuff at risk because it's a big risk, big pain in the ass, for zero benefit. It's irrelevant to renting: renters are at risk when they rat or mine but they earn enough to make that risk worth it.

Weaselior wrote:

If hisec industry is perceived as risk free and taking so much profit from nullsec then why not gank the afk freighters that are feeding the cycle you describe for risk free industry. The vibrant gameplay you describe as going to nullsec will be at the expense of the other areas. Will you ever transport goods into and out of null when you can just produce and sell them in situ? The gameplay comes from the need to move things around, to gather resources from disparate sources, from having to either defend your resources in null or outperform your competitors in hisec.allowing everything to be done better in null will destroy that dynamic. The large alliances in null will simply get even more rich and even more insular. Will you even bother with burn Jita when you can outperform the trade hubs locally?

The industrial zones you describe in null will kill hisec dead. How could hisec ever compete with nullsec buffed industrial zones? Destroying the dynamic between the security sectiors in this way can only be harmful to the game.

transport isn't free

and we do gank afk freighters, we have an entire organization dedicated to it

we will continue to rely on highsec: it supplies all of the lowends, it is necessary as a trade hub for products that are regional (moongoo, invention stuff, etc), it supplies all datacores, hell most of what we need is supplied by highsec or will be traded there. hordes of wretched pubbies will continue to mine veldspar, and then compress it for export. hordes of wretched pubbies will run missions for lp, for items they will sell to us in jita

all of those things will continue to be produced and exported by highsec, even if all highsec industry becomes wrecked (which it will not, once again transport isn't free, at least once you're not in highsec and can't pay pubbies tiny amounts to move things at the pubbie's own risk)

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

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1490 - 2014-04-22 16:50:16 UTC
highsec should not be more profitable than null, it should have activities that are at a different place on the risk/reward/effort spectrum

afk mining, afk mission running, trade hub .01isking, all of these things are at a very different point on the risk/reward/effort spectrum and are more 'profitable' than many nullsec activities once you factor in effort (which highseccers never do)

every time you hear someone bleat "but people can gank me in highsec and its harder to gank you in null" they're always, always, always ignoring effort. once you factor in effort the argument evaporates like a fart in the wind.

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

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1491 - 2014-04-22 16:52:23 UTC
in today's news, when you put in the years-long effort to secure and defend a region, pay upkeep, run defense fleets, and you're at the keyboard when you are mining you get ganked less than some idiot afk mining in a retriever with a thirty minute egg timer

when you work out the profit per effort-time, the idiot in the afk retriever has earned massively more for each second of effort he's put in

it is simply that highseccers refuse to do this math that causes bad posts

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

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#1492 - 2014-04-22 16:53:52 UTC
No, I know this is impossible because the dev's are ignoring this thread, and the null sec cartel propaganda team will fill in all the talking points on behalf of the poor overworked dev's, but I would love for a dev, or dev's, to explain what fallout they expect with these changes, short term and long term.

I assume these changes were not made just purely for the vindictive pleasure of wrecking high sec and low sec manufacturing, nor designed solely to enhance the wallets of those that control null sec station taxes. I assume these changes are being made to increase the subscription rate.

So all you dev's, who I am sure reading all the constructive feedback that phantom requested in the very first post, perhaps one of you can enlighten us on how you see the subscription rate going up with these changes?
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#1493 - 2014-04-22 16:57:55 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
they're always, always, always ignoring effort. once you factor in effort the argument evaporates like a fart in the wind.


So factoring in effort...boosting S&I in nullsec will reduce the effort involved as transport (which as you say isn't free) suddenly becomes a whole lot simpler, cheaper and...less effort. So more reward for less effort. Seems somewhat wrong don't you think?

Another question. Why should anyone believe that the head of goonswarm economic warfare has anything but goons economic dominance in mind? The good of the game is most definitely not served by pushing the best of everything into one area controlled by very few groups.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1494 - 2014-04-22 17:00:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Weaselior
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

So factoring in effort...boosting S&I in nullsec will reduce the effort involved as transport (which as you say isn't free) suddenly becomes a whole lot simpler, cheaper and...less effort. So more reward for less effort. Seems somewhat wrong don't you think?


no and i don't think you really "get" how balance works

nullsec got no reward for its massive additional effort. now, effort is being curbed some and reward is being increased some. that is exactly as it should be, because the balance was off before

it was unbalanced before, it is being balanced. you seem to be puzzled by how balance works.

Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

Another question. Why should anyone believe that the head of goonswarm economic warfare has anything but goons economic dominance in mind? The good of the game is most definitely not served by pushing the best of everything into one area controlled by very few groups.


you should believe because our arguments are self-evidently correct and have been unrefuted in the years that we've been making them. they stand on their own merit and their blinding correctness, which stands in sharp contrast to the counterarguments of "but...goons!"

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

Aeonidis
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1495 - 2014-04-22 17:07:06 UTC
Urziel99 wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

Are you going to dispute that, at present, S&I is massively and overwhlemingly more profitable in hi-sec?


Are you going to dispute that moon mining, gas harvesting, drug manufacturing, ore mining (when it happens), exploration, ratting, plexing, salvaging and npc missions are massively and overwhelmingly more profitable in nullsec?

Are you also going to dispute that in order to be "massively and overwhelmingly profitable" in S&I that I have to put orders of magnitude more isk on the table than any of those activities in nullsec?

I await your meager defense with baited breath.



^^^^^
This
Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1496 - 2014-04-22 17:08:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Aryth
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
No, I know this is impossible because the dev's are ignoring this thread, and the null sec cartel propaganda team will fill in all the talking points on behalf of the poor overworked dev's, but I would love for a dev, or dev's, to explain what fallout they expect with these changes, short term and long term.

I assume these changes were not made just purely for the vindictive pleasure of wrecking high sec and low sec manufacturing, nor designed solely to enhance the wallets of those that control null sec station taxes. I assume these changes are being made to increase the subscription rate.

So all you dev's, who I am sure reading all the constructive feedback that phantom requested in the very first post, perhaps one of you can enlighten us on how you see the subscription rate going up with these changes?


Did I hear filling in of talking points?

I haven't commented much in this thread because I feel like only a handful of posters even understand it to this point. So I will break it all down into a few areas. Obviously a lot more happens but they are details in the greater framework of the below.

Some industry (large margin large ISK, large ships) will move to nullsec as the mechanics will allow them to be more profitable than highsec. This doesn't mean they won't be doable at all in highsec however.

Null will consolidate and increase density in economic hubs. Note, Goons had done this long ago but this will enable us to enact some plans done up years ago and further increase density.

Compression just changes form but remains an industry.

Highsec industry won't be as clustered around Jita on an unique pilot basis. However, those large operations will likely move in now as they can accept the margin compression due to scaling fees to eliminate the logistics.

If anything this results in a short term drop in subs but better long term viability for the game. I expect some % of people are going to rage about these patches.

I always wondered something about those who frame the argument as null vs highsec. Lets assume for the moment EVE was all highsec. Assuming we still played that sorta game do people not think we could do a complete takeover of say The Forge if we wanted? At some point you just have to realize you are an inferior player in a very deep game. There is nothing wrong with that. Enjoy what parts of the game you can manage to be good at.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#1497 - 2014-04-22 17:10:20 UTC
Weaselior wrote:


no and i don't think you really "get" how balance works



I understand balance perfectly well, two sides in equilibrium upon a fulcrum...kind of like hisec and nullsec with losec as the fulcrum. Your argument that null should be better for everything allows for absolutely no balance. I'm not arguing that null should not be viable for S&I, I am however arguing and will continue to argue that it should absolutely not be better at everything in the interest of balance and balanced gameplay.


Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

Another question. Why should anyone believe that the head of goonswarm economic warfare has anything but goons economic dominance in mind? The good of the game is most definitely not served by pushing the best of everything into one area controlled by very few groups.


you should believe because our arguments are self-evidently correct and have been unrefuted in the years that we've been making them. they stand on their own merit and their blinding correctness, which stands in sharp contrast to the counterarguments of "but...goons!"[/quote]

Clearly they are not 'self-evidently' correct otherwise people would not question them. Please explain clearly how it is blindingly correct that one section of the game should have every advantage at the expense of every other area? Also explain how this is balanced whilst you do so.
Dramaticus
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1498 - 2014-04-22 17:15:11 UTC
The balance is that there is risk in null-sec while there is none in high-sec.

The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal

The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#1499 - 2014-04-22 17:20:22 UTC
Aryth wrote:
At some point you just have to realize you are an inferior player in a very deep game.


If those who play the game as hisec S&I folks are so inferior...why the complaints that they make so much money by doing what they do better than others?

The changes in S&I are long overdue and welcome, but improving it in null beyond the ability to perform S&I in hisec? That is just wrong. Buffing one area because players in another area can perform that career better? Completely wrong.

I'd like lots of moon goo but I have to source that from null one way or another. Fine, that's good for the game. Why then should null not have to source the best in S&I from another area?
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1500 - 2014-04-22 17:22:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Weaselior
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

I understand balance perfectly well, two sides in equilibrium upon a fulcrum...kind of like hisec and nullsec with losec as the fulcrum. Your argument that null should be better for everything allows for absolutely no balance. I'm not arguing that null should not be viable for S&I, I am however arguing and will continue to argue that it should absolutely not be better at everything in the interest of balance and balanced gameplay.


you do not understand balance

you asked "well effort is going down and reward is going up, isn't that a problem": it is obviously not, because before effort was way out of line with reward, and they needed to be adjusted. that's what balancing is. you said a dumb, you were wrong, and now you are trying to discuss something else to avoid admitting you were wrong

highsec has its place: the low-effort low-risk zone where you can earn the largest rewards for low-effort/low-risk activities. you don't want things balanced: you want highsec to have an absolute advantage in every respect (absolute profitability, effort, and risk), and currently highsec industry hits all three.

highsec has had an unjustifiable absolute advantage. it's important to remember that highsec is where the less adept, less adventurous players are and therefore should absolutely be the kiddy zone, but that's not relevant for this discussion: even were the highsec player even close to the equal of the nullsec player, there would be an absolute imbalance

that imbalance is being fixed. people who profited from that imbalance are whining up a storm, just like every single other balance fix ever. nano-nos-domi able to solo ten arbitrary ships? obviously imbalanced, but still got people whining up a storm. titans able to one-shot an entire grid of ships with absolutely no risk whatsoever? obviously unbalanced, but people still whined up a storm when fixed

highsec industry better in every way whatsoever than null? obviously unbalanced, but people are currently whining up a storm. water is wet, fire hot.

Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

Clearly they are not 'self-evidently' correct otherwise people would not question them. Please explain clearly how it is blindingly correct that one section of the game should have every advantage at the expense of every other area? Also explain how this is balanced whilst you do so.

of course they're self-evidently correct, it is merely people with a vested interest in believing untruths that dispute them, or fools.

it's hard to make a man understand something when his livelihood depends on him not understanding it. it's also hard to make a man who doesn't understand math understand that 4^2=16, even though that is also self-evidently correct. that our arguments stand unrebutted except by this sort of nonsense despite so many people with a vested interest in trying to disprove them merely confirms our correctness

Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

If those who play the game as hisec S&I folks are so inferior...why the complaints that they make so much money by doing what they do better than others?


because the game is unbalanced. i see you're finally starting to get it: inferior players, taking less risk, and putting in less effort out-earning better players taking greater risks and putting in greater effort is an obvious problem. but again, we can even pretend that highseccers are equal to nullsecers and it's still a problem!

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