These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

Geopolitical Consequences of Moon Patch

Author
Padrick Millar
Asteroid Farm Unlimited
The Bastion
#1 - 2017-06-26 14:49:22 UTC
Eve is played from numerous points of view, and one of them is the geopolitical view - who owns what and to what length will they go to keep it. The moon patch this winter - if you believe CCP's brief descriptions of it - seems to open up the game to some major changes, much of which will be geopolitical.

I have my own view of what those changes will look like - the short version is the map will look different - but what do you think the biggest consequence of the moon patch will be?

Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#2 - 2017-06-26 15:05:37 UTC
Padrick Millar wrote:
what do you think the biggest consequence of the moon patch will be?
The biggest consequences will be the stress test on the new forum. There's going to be a lot of formerly complacent null bears crying a river.

Mr Epeen Cool
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#3 - 2017-06-26 15:23:08 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Padrick Millar wrote:
what do you think the biggest consequence of the moon patch will be?
The biggest consequences will be the stress test on the new forum. There's going to be a lot of formerly complacent null bears crying a river.

Mr Epeen Cool


Not really. CCP caved on the nerf to supercap ratting, and they will cave on the changes to moon mining. Have to maintain those null sec cartel cash streams.

There will be changes made to the mechanics that will ensure that every bit of ISK remains in the hands of the moon owner.

When CCP starts talking about a redistribution of wealth and conflict drivers by creating dynamic security status (more activity drives up the status, less activity drives down the status), then we can see that CCP is serious about saving the game.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#4 - 2017-06-26 15:27:15 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
Padrick Millar wrote:
what do you think the biggest consequence of the moon patch will be?
The biggest consequences will be the stress test on the new forum. There's going to be a lot of formerly complacent null bears crying a river.

Mr Epeen Cool


Not really. CCP caved on the nerf to supercap ratting,


Lolwut.

That's pretty dim even for you.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Cypherous
Liberty Rogues
Aprilon Dynasty
#5 - 2017-06-26 15:38:19 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
Padrick Millar wrote:
what do you think the biggest consequence of the moon patch will be?
The biggest consequences will be the stress test on the new forum. There's going to be a lot of formerly complacent null bears crying a river.

Mr Epeen Cool


Not really. CCP caved on the nerf to supercap ratting, and they will cave on the changes to moon mining. Have to maintain those null sec cartel cash streams.

There will be changes made to the mechanics that will ensure that every bit of ISK remains in the hands of the moon owner.

When CCP starts talking about a redistribution of wealth and conflict drivers by creating dynamic security status (more activity drives up the status, less activity drives down the status), then we can see that CCP is serious about saving the game.


Nah they will nuke off passive moon goo income, which is great, you'll actually have to have people in mining ships to get your moon goo instead of just sitting in a safe bubble, personally i look forward to ninja mining fleets, hotdrop to get the fleet then bridge in the expedition frigates to ninja the moon goo, it will be glorious :P
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#6 - 2017-06-26 15:47:06 UTC
I imagine this will have little impact on the bigger and more organized null-sec groups.

One of those 10 rorqual belt clearing fleets will make short work of the moon chunks (I assume).

What this will likely kill are the small group or 1-man moon farming operations.

I guess a simple way to think about any change of this nature is that if the change results in needing more manpower to do something than the way it was before... the groups with more manpower are going to benefit.
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
#7 - 2017-06-26 16:20:45 UTC
Blade Darth
Room for Improvement
Good Sax
#8 - 2017-06-26 16:36:28 UTC
Scialt wrote:
I imagine this will have little impact on the bigger and more organized null-sec groups.

One of those 10 rorqual belt clearing fleets will make short work of the moon chunks (I assume).

What this will likely kill are the small group or 1-man moon farming operations.

I guess a simple way to think about any change of this nature is that if the change results in needing more manpower to do something than the way it was before... the groups with more manpower are going to benefit.
Those "1-man moon farming" operations are alts, pets or at least close friends of an alliance so nothing will change in the manpower division. Instead of dropping hacs or a dread bomb they will have to drop procurers and orcas thou, which I'm sure none of the pvp groups want to do.
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#9 - 2017-06-26 16:56:40 UTC
Blade Darth wrote:
Scialt wrote:
I imagine this will have little impact on the bigger and more organized null-sec groups.

One of those 10 rorqual belt clearing fleets will make short work of the moon chunks (I assume).

What this will likely kill are the small group or 1-man moon farming operations.

I guess a simple way to think about any change of this nature is that if the change results in needing more manpower to do something than the way it was before... the groups with more manpower are going to benefit.
Those "1-man moon farming" operations are alts, pets or at least close friends of an alliance so nothing will change in the manpower division. Instead of dropping hacs or a dread bomb they will have to drop procurers and orcas thou, which I'm sure none of the pvp groups want to do.


Well, I guess my point is that large null-sec groups will be able to handle their moons more easily than moon owners without access to large numbers of people.

Most large null-sec groups have large numbers of pet or member miners already in their space. Re-purposing those folks to mine moon materials seems like something they'll be able to handle relatively well. On the other hand, the groups that might own a dozen low-sec moons to fund their low-sec PvP group are going to have a harder time because they don't have a "mining division" to gather their moon goo.

If you already have a dedicated portion of your alliance who are miners... you'll probably be able to handle the change okay. If you don't... you won't.
Kathern Aurilen
#10 - 2017-06-26 18:43:24 UTC
Cypherous wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
Padrick Millar wrote:
what do you think the biggest consequence of the moon patch will be?
The biggest consequences will be the stress test on the new forum. There's going to be a lot of formerly complacent null bears crying a river.

Mr Epeen Cool


Not really. CCP caved on the nerf to supercap ratting, and they will cave on the changes to moon mining. Have to maintain those null sec cartel cash streams.

There will be changes made to the mechanics that will ensure that every bit of ISK remains in the hands of the moon owner.

When CCP starts talking about a redistribution of wealth and conflict drivers by creating dynamic security status (more activity drives up the status, less activity drives down the status), then we can see that CCP is serious about saving the game.


Nah they will nuke off passive moon goo income, which is great, you'll actually have to have people in mining ships to get your moon goo instead of just sitting in a safe bubble, personally i look forward to ninja mining fleets, hotdrop to get the fleet then bridge in the expedition frigates to ninja the moon goo, it will be glorious :P

I would get in on that.

No cuts, no butts, no coconuts!

Forum alt, unskilled in the ways of pewpew!

Padrick Millar
Asteroid Farm Unlimited
The Bastion
#11 - 2017-06-26 18:53:11 UTC
Thanks for the replies, so far. I agree it is a question of manpower, and I don't think the big gorillas will easily re-purpose pilots who joined for fighting to endless mining runs. Maybe I'm wrong. I think the manpower issue will be key, and will really in the end make the difference between potential outcomes of the patch.

Please keep responding. I've had this convo with so many people who can't see beyond pew pew that the ideas here are great.
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#12 - 2017-06-26 19:28:05 UTC
Padrick Millar wrote:
Thanks for the replies, so far. I agree it is a question of manpower, and I don't think the big gorillas will easily re-purpose pilots who joined for fighting to endless mining runs. Maybe I'm wrong. I think the manpower issue will be key, and will really in the end make the difference between potential outcomes of the patch.

Please keep responding. I've had this convo with so many people who can't see beyond pew pew that the ideas here are great.


I think you are mistaken as to what the "big gorillas" actually are.

As far as I know, most alliances have a mix of corporations in them. Some are primarily based on PvP... and others primarily based on industry.

You may not hear much about the Industry wings of the goons or of PL or PH or Test... but they do actually exist. The people in Goonspace using fleets of Rorq's to clear out belts aren't the same players that PvP (mostly). They're industrial focused players.

The big corporations won't be re-purposing PvP players... they'll be repurposing Industrial players. Guys who were mining rocks will instead spend part of their time mining moon chunks. A 30,000 member organization like the goons probably will not have a hard time getting moon mining ops organized. I don't think the 5000 man alliances like Brave or CO2 will struggle much either.

When you get down to the 1000-man groups... it might be a little more difficult. I specifically said "group" rather than alliance... because there are some areas where multiple alliances essentially work as one unit and one alliance is essentially the industrial wing of another that focuses on PvP.

I'm not sure where the difficulties will really start to be felt... but it will certainly be a situation with a PvP focused entity without a large industrial support wing that relied on Moon Goo profits. Not the truly diverse larger alliances.

It WILL likely call for restructuring in the larger alliances though. I believe in many cases a central entity might hold the moons and provide SRP or other alliance services out of that moon income. That might have to change to where the industrial corp holds the moon and pays the central entity a higher "tax" that funds the SRP (while keeping some of the income). For the larger alliances though I believe it will all sort out decently (for them).
Matthias Ancaladron
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#13 - 2017-06-26 19:45:16 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
Padrick Millar wrote:
what do you think the biggest consequence of the moon patch will be?
The biggest consequences will be the stress test on the new forum. There's going to be a lot of formerly complacent null bears crying a river.

Mr Epeen Cool


Not really. CCP caved on the nerf to supercap ratting, and they will cave on the changes to moon mining. Have to maintain those null sec cartel cash streams.

There will be changes made to the mechanics that will ensure that every bit of ISK remains in the hands of the moon owner.

When CCP starts talking about a redistribution of wealth and conflict drivers by creating dynamic security status (more activity drives up the status, less activity drives down the status), then we can see that CCP is serious about saving the game.

Wouldn't a dynamic security status make upgrading ihubs inherently worthless?
If you end up being so active your sec status goes up the spawns would get worse. You'd just have a couple of frigates like high sec

Unless the changed security status didn't alter loot or spawns at all.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#14 - 2017-06-26 20:25:38 UTC
Matthias Ancaladron wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
Padrick Millar wrote:
what do you think the biggest consequence of the moon patch will be?
The biggest consequences will be the stress test on the new forum. There's going to be a lot of formerly complacent null bears crying a river.

Mr Epeen Cool


Not really. CCP caved on the nerf to supercap ratting, and they will cave on the changes to moon mining. Have to maintain those null sec cartel cash streams.

There will be changes made to the mechanics that will ensure that every bit of ISK remains in the hands of the moon owner.

When CCP starts talking about a redistribution of wealth and conflict drivers by creating dynamic security status (more activity drives up the status, less activity drives down the status), then we can see that CCP is serious about saving the game.

Wouldn't a dynamic security status make upgrading ihubs inherently worthless?
If you end up being so active your sec status goes up the spawns would get worse. You'd just have a couple of frigates like high sec

Unless the changed security status didn't alter loot or spawns at all.


You did get it in your first statement. Groups that rat/mine/manufacture a system to death would soon see that profitability would go down, and they would be forced to live with that lower profitability, or move to green pastures.

It makes zero sense that the more NPC's being killed in a system should lead to MORE of the same NPC's showing up to get killed. Now, if those NPC's showed up in 500 supercaps looking for revenge and wiped out the player citadels within 3 jumps, NOW that would be logical.
mkint
#15 - 2017-06-26 20:43:39 UTC
Scialt wrote:
Padrick Millar wrote:
Thanks for the replies, so far. I agree it is a question of manpower, and I don't think the big gorillas will easily re-purpose pilots who joined for fighting to endless mining runs. Maybe I'm wrong. I think the manpower issue will be key, and will really in the end make the difference between potential outcomes of the patch.

Please keep responding. I've had this convo with so many people who can't see beyond pew pew that the ideas here are great.


I think you are mistaken as to what the "big gorillas" actually are.

As far as I know, most alliances have a mix of corporations in them. Some are primarily based on PvP... and others primarily based on industry.

You may not hear much about the Industry wings of the goons or of PL or PH or Test... but they do actually exist. The people in Goonspace using fleets of Rorq's to clear out belts aren't the same players that PvP (mostly). They're industrial focused players.

The big corporations won't be re-purposing PvP players... they'll be repurposing Industrial players. Guys who were mining rocks will instead spend part of their time mining moon chunks. A 30,000 member organization like the goons probably will not have a hard time getting moon mining ops organized. I don't think the 5000 man alliances like Brave or CO2 will struggle much either.

When you get down to the 1000-man groups... it might be a little more difficult. I specifically said "group" rather than alliance... because there are some areas where multiple alliances essentially work as one unit and one alliance is essentially the industrial wing of another that focuses on PvP.

I'm not sure where the difficulties will really start to be felt... but it will certainly be a situation with a PvP focused entity without a large industrial support wing that relied on Moon Goo profits. Not the truly diverse larger alliances.

It WILL likely call for restructuring in the larger alliances though. I believe in many cases a central entity might hold the moons and provide SRP or other alliance services out of that moon income. That might have to change to where the industrial corp holds the moon and pays the central entity a higher "tax" that funds the SRP (while keeping some of the income). For the larger alliances though I believe it will all sort out decently (for them).

I'm not sure you've got alliance economics worked out... The mega alliances hold lots of moons, sure. But this change is more along the lines of adding more anoms. Active effort resulting in front line income. Will the alliance be able to enforce any kind of tax on the goo the members mine? It doesn't look like it. And since the reactions will be done in the industry interface, the alliances can't even collect reprocessing taxes like they'd be able to with ores. I think it'll be nearly impossible for the groups to monetize moon goo on the alliance level, especially the bigger they get. If I ran a mega alliance with certain budgetary obligations, I imagine I'd have to increase corporate dues, and shift the tax collection responsibilities down the chain. Trying to enforce moon goo ops on the alliance level would be trying to swim upstream. Let miners mine whatever they want and go from there, the market will determine the most worthwhile activity. On a bigger scale, this will push the price of high end ores up towards the price of moon goo, and in general push up the prices of all mins. What happens to the price of the moon goo itself will depend on the hard production limits set by CCP.

That's more economic scale, but some of the assumptions inform what will likely happen on the geopolitical. The groups that rely on moon goo itself for their daily function will be choked out (the small groups that *need* the passive income to play) while those that are more diversified (the mega-alliances that don't really need to care) will become more entrenched. The smaller groups will collapse and unsub. The bigger groups will gobble up more space, EVE will become even more stagnant and less fun. This is a gift to the dev-buds at the expense of the health of the game itself. Another example that EVE's long term health is not part of CCP's business plan (I'm convinced they are deliberately trying to retire EVE as part of their 5 or 10 year business plan.)

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

Padrick Millar
Asteroid Farm Unlimited
The Bastion
#16 - 2017-06-26 21:02:49 UTC
mkint wrote:
Scialt wrote:
[quote=Padrick Millar]Thanks for the replies, so far. I agree it is a question of manpower, and I don't think the big gorillas will easily re-purpose pilots who joined for fighting to endless mining runs. Maybe I'm wrong. I think the manpower issue will be key, and will really in the end make the difference between potential outcomes of the patch.

Please keep responding. I've had this convo with so many people who can't see beyond pew pew that the ideas here are great.


That's more economic scale, but some of the assumptions inform what will likely happen on the geopolitical. The groups that rely on moon goo itself for their daily function will be choked out (the small groups that *need* the passive income to play) while those that are more diversified (the mega-alliances that don't really need to care) will become more entrenched. The smaller groups will collapse and unsub. The bigger groups will gobble up more space, EVE will become even more stagnant and less fun. This is a gift to the dev-buds at the expense of the health of the game itself. Another example that EVE's long term health is not part of CCP's business plan (I'm convinced they are deliberately trying to retire EVE as part of their 5 or 10 year business plan.)



I get the exact opposite impression. I think the moon patch actually opens the game up, rather than further stagnates it. You're far more versed in the economics than I am, so this is just a gut feeling on my part. I can't supply figures to back it up.
mkint
#17 - 2017-06-26 23:55:05 UTC  |  Edited by: mkint
Padrick Millar wrote:
mkint wrote:
Scialt wrote:
[quote=Padrick Millar]Thanks for the replies, so far. I agree it is a question of manpower, and I don't think the big gorillas will easily re-purpose pilots who joined for fighting to endless mining runs. Maybe I'm wrong. I think the manpower issue will be key, and will really in the end make the difference between potential outcomes of the patch.

Please keep responding. I've had this convo with so many people who can't see beyond pew pew that the ideas here are great.


That's more economic scale, but some of the assumptions inform what will likely happen on the geopolitical. The groups that rely on moon goo itself for their daily function will be choked out (the small groups that *need* the passive income to play) while those that are more diversified (the mega-alliances that don't really need to care) will become more entrenched. The smaller groups will collapse and unsub. The bigger groups will gobble up more space, EVE will become even more stagnant and less fun. This is a gift to the dev-buds at the expense of the health of the game itself. Another example that EVE's long term health is not part of CCP's business plan (I'm convinced they are deliberately trying to retire EVE as part of their 5 or 10 year business plan.)



I get the exact opposite impression. I think the moon patch actually opens the game up, rather than further stagnates it. You're far more versed in the economics than I am, so this is just a gut feeling on my part. I can't supply figures to back it up.


I don't really have the actual numbers either. I've got a pretty good grasp of supply and demand though. A pretty good grasp of cost vs benefit. In terms of cost vs benefit, it could be thought of as the cost of moon mining being dramatically increased to the point that most groups will be priced out of it. The increased cost comes in the form of time. Any group that doesn't have the man hours available is priced out by default. Especially since unlike POS mining, they don't have the control of the output materials meaning they also have basically no chance to benefit either. There might be a couple tiny groups that manage to make it work for them by flying under the radar, but they won't produce in enough volume to matter, or likely to even be worth it. The only way I can picture this increasing participation for smaller groups through forms of enslavement and indentured servitude.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#18 - 2017-06-27 07:08:04 UTC
A number of people think that the renters of systems with good moons will have their rent increased and the moon handed over to them, so not much change there, the alliances that own their space and use it like the Goons will just do it and those entities that had moons in otherwise hostile space are well and truly up shite creek without a paddle which is a good thing. There will be attempts at extortion etc., but at the end of the day it will settle down with an overall affect of less moon goo reaching the market.

Ninja mining will be a thing for smaller groups and players and could be funny...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Ruby Stonefist
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#19 - 2017-06-27 08:06:35 UTC
If you are a 500 pilot moon owning PVP corp/alliance with no industry/mining, then you already rely on someone with industry to buy your ships from unless you're jumping everything from hi-sec.

"The exact time of the detonation is controlled by the owners of the Refinery within limits. If the chunk is left unattended long enough it will disintegrate into the asteroid field on its own."

Since you control the exact time that the moon-chunk blows, you could sell the moon-chunk to a nearby industrial corp.

"... close enough for a pilot controlling the Refinery to be able to cover the friendly miners and/or attack uninvited guests."

Since the station is in firing range of the moon-goo field it would be worthwhile for a nearby industrial corp to actually purchase the mining rights from you even if they know you are pure PVP and they're the only miners around.

This is all assuming that the moon-rocks are in demand of course.
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2017-06-27 08:28:19 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
A number of people think that the renters of systems with good moons will have their rent increased and the moon handed over to them, so not much change there, the alliances that own their space and use it like the Goons will just do it and those entities that had moons in otherwise hostile space are well and truly up shite creek without a paddle which is a good thing. There will be attempts at extortion etc., but at the end of the day it will settle down with an overall affect of less moon goo reaching the market.



Thats possible, but its not anywhere near as trivial mathematically as that, because the renter will have to divide their game time between farming the moon and regular farming, so all they'd be able to pay is the difference in the money earned mining goo vs the money earned regular mining, and honestly it sounds less safe than regular mining so people will want a premium for mining on a timer.

ie value capture of the full value of the moon is impossible for a stay away landlord, and not only should it reduce the goo coming in, it should also reduce the minerals coming in, and it should make it easier to attack the system economically by cloaking up in it and dropping on people mining etc, so if you don't like a landlord, you should be able to hurt them more in this system.

Quote:


Ninja mining will be a thing for smaller groups and players and could be funny...


Maybe in lowsec/ npc null. I think that refining ore to a usefully shippable size is an issue in sovereign null when you aren't the holder, so maybe there will be a category of activity that looks more like pirating of ore than ninjaing it, where a largeish force comes in with miners, suppresses the locals with local superiority and then mines and takes the ore.

123Next page