These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

high sec ice ?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#101 - 2011-10-13 12:25:31 UTC
Currently, hi-sec ice is generating a whole lot of gameplay and tears. As far as I'm concerned, it should stay.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Smiley Smile
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#102 - 2011-10-13 12:28:10 UTC
In a weird way, the Goon campaign is proving that moving ice into null and allowing it to be controlled (like moons) causes prices to skyrocket and access to drop. Why Goons are choosing to make that point is something I don't know, as I'm unsure whether the leadership does or does not want ice to disappear.

It was flagged in the initial announcement (on the gank campaign) as the weakest link in the economy. Proving how fragile it is might bolster the argument to make ice commodities more stable and available - ie, keep it in highsec and maybe expand th number of systems.

I only worry about wormholes if ice were to move to null and be more easily manipulated, as the POS is the core of WH life.

As a WH roamer, though, I like the idea of finding more and more POS that have run out of fuel ;)
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#103 - 2011-10-13 12:31:46 UTC
Smiley Smile wrote:
In a weird way, the Goon campaign is proving that moving ice into null and allowing it to be controlled (like moons) causes prices to skyrocket and access to drop.


It's way too early in the campaign to properly make this argument. We're barely out of the initial price shock.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
pussnheels
Viziam
#104 - 2011-10-13 12:39:53 UTC  |  Edited by: pussnheels
Malcanis wrote:
Smiley Smile wrote:
In a weird way, the Goon campaign is proving that moving ice into null and allowing it to be controlled (like moons) causes prices to skyrocket and access to drop.


It's way too early in the campaign to properly make this argument. We're barely out of the initial price shock.


Actually just the idea or rumour will send prices shyhigh in RL trading and it does the same in EVE
I might despise the goons for all their rethoric and sometimes plain childish behavoir , sometimes they do hit the right note

Tho this could be accidently

I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#105 - 2011-10-13 12:40:38 UTC
Smiley Smile wrote:
In a weird way, the Goon campaign is proving that moving ice into null and allowing it to be controlled (like moons) causes prices to skyrocket and access to drop. Why Goons are choosing to make that point is something I don't know, as I'm unsure whether the leadership does or does not want ice to disappear.

It was flagged in the initial announcement (on the gank campaign) as the weakest link in the economy. Proving how fragile it is might bolster the argument to make ice commodities more stable and available - ie, keep it in highsec and maybe expand th number of systems.

I only worry about wormholes if ice were to move to null and be more easily manipulated, as the POS is the core of WH life.

As a WH roamer, though, I like the idea of finding more and more POS that have run out of fuel ;)



everyone, including every ccp employee considering it, knows moving ice to 0.0 would cause prices to increase and access to drop, that would be the point

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#106 - 2011-10-13 12:41:36 UTC
really the only argument our campaign makes to ccp is "woo we can have fun with these highsec ice belts"

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Woo Glin
State War Academy
Caldari State
#107 - 2011-10-13 12:43:50 UTC
Removing ice from hisec won't do anything to move people into 0.0. The ice miners will just mine veldspar or scordite or whatever else they can find, as many have been doing in Gallente space as of late. The fact that they'll make less is a moot point as they're already mining (in hisec) and making pennies to begin with.

It's easy to get into a 0.0 alliance, even one with sov, in nearly any region of space with few exceptions. The reality is that the vast majority of the player-base has absolutely no interest in PvP in any form, be it consensual or non-consensual, and would rather run the isk-treadmill in the warm bosom of concord.

Don't hold your breath for any nerfs to hisec incomes. Those players are by far the least demanding portion of their subscription base. EVE is being relegated to the back burner and the hisec population is the key to EVE's long-term profitability.
pussnheels
Viziam
#108 - 2011-10-13 12:49:14 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Smiley Smile wrote:
In a weird way, the Goon campaign is proving that moving ice into null and allowing it to be controlled (like moons) causes prices to skyrocket and access to drop. Why Goons are choosing to make that point is something I don't know, as I'm unsure whether the leadership does or does not want ice to disappear.

It was flagged in the initial announcement (on the gank campaign) as the weakest link in the economy. Proving how fragile it is might bolster the argument to make ice commodities more stable and available - ie, keep it in highsec and maybe expand th number of systems.

I only worry about wormholes if ice were to move to null and be more easily manipulated, as the POS is the core of WH life.

As a WH roamer, though, I like the idea of finding more and more POS that have run out of fuel ;)



everyone, including every ccp employee considering it, knows moving ice to 0.0 would cause prices to increase and access to drop, that would be the point


indeed and in the worse case scenario forces most of the players to stop playing eve since you, in the worse case scenario, killed off the playerdriven economy, which is one of the 2 basic foundations this whole sandbox rest on
other one being the non conse whatever ...pvp, what would you fight for if nobody buys your abc ores or moongoo anymore

This is in the worse case scenario tho

Goons Delenda Est

I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire
Woo Glin
State War Academy
Caldari State
#109 - 2011-10-13 12:49:42 UTC
See also: The chinese server, where the playerbase is small enough that major parts of the economy don't function properly due to a lack of players to run the complex extraction/refining/manufacturing chains necessary for sustained production. If anything, I would expect any potential re-balancing of moons to make better use of both low-ends and alchemy. PI followed this same path. Don't look for low-value/high-volume items like ice to leave hisec anytime soon.
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#110 - 2011-10-13 12:50:56 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Currently, hi-sec ice is generating a whole lot of gameplay and tears. As far as I'm concerned, it should stay.


Now that's the spirit. Gameplay, tears and profit. Any Ferengi would be proud. Big smile
Your campaign has certainly generated a good amount of very interesting dynamics.

COO - Bene Gesserit Chapterhouse  CEO - Sanctuary Pact Alliance
Simetraz
State War Academy
Caldari State
#111 - 2011-10-13 12:59:50 UTC
You know make one fuel for high-sec POS's.
One for WH Pos's.
And get rid of high-sec ice and let 0.0 figure it out how they are going to fuel all their POS's.

Problem solved.


EVERYBODY KNOWS