These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proposal ] The Removal of Ice from High Security Systems

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ice Dealer
Ice Dealer Corporation
#41 - 2011-10-06 05:35:14 UTC
Ingvar Angst,

I like you sir, that was well thought out, and you stated a very good case.

I think that we just see different outcomes, but see the same trickles.
I feel that LOW sec should maintain ice how it currently is. It is vastly more accessible to empire corps then 0.0. Also, NPC 0.0 should also maintain ice.
My expected outcome is that corporations will seek to overcome the current drawbacks of low and NPC null in order to "strike it rich" so to speak.
I remember a time, where rookie's wanted to mine in lowsec, because they thought they would be making more isk in an environment that is harsher then empire. I'd like to ask someone in an active corp that has new members whom mine, do they bug you for a lowsec mining op?
Moving ice out of highsec may help to eject lowsec with a larger population. Clearly the miners would need pvp support, and if ice prices were high-enough it would warrant the isk/hour lost having pvp'ers escort instead of simply more miners.
Or, the even larger offset would be that the corp could afford to have a high-sec POS where previously they could not. Then they could make a passive income from research/t2 invention, or whatever they'd like to use that POS for.
Pirates would be happy, as all of a sudden there are more people in lowsec, and they would have to decide if it was worth it to try to attack a well defended fleet, or they may need to grab more friends to help.
This could inspire nice battles over resources, and a greater sense of respect of corpmates who specialize in certain fields (miners, PVPers) as each relies on the other, rather then two distinct groups.

You are absolutely right , research, and invention would increase in price. Blueprint copies would increase as well. However, they would not increase as much as we expect them to. Believe it or not, there are a lot of high-sec research lines. Yes, there is a wait, but the supply exists. Also, NPC null has lines free all over, even copy slots. Greater risk, for quicker time using them.
The corps who took the time for a corp lowsec / NPC mining op, would have already invested risk in the mining op itself, as to mitigate the risk in doing research elsewhere, or having to wait a long time.

T3 would be a very interesting relation. You and I agree, spending more isk on POS ice fuels, would raise t3 prices? Well, perhaps we can both agree that those costs will be passed on to those who buy t3?
Meaning you spend more isk, but make more as well.
(Side note:
If you live in Alaska, USA, you know what i mean. You may get paid $10 / hour to work at tacobell, far over federal minimum wadge, but it costs $8.00 for a meal there. In the Washington, you make $7.25 per hour, but it only costs $5.80 for the same meal. Both cost 80% of your hourly wadge. The same floating effect can be used to show decade prices. Where our father paid $100 to fix his broken car back in 1971, where now we paid $300 for the same type of repair. However, it equated to 2 weeks of our father's paycheck, and it STILL equates to 2 weeks ouf OUR paycheck at a comparable job)

Another probable potability, as t3 goes up, more corps will do "day trips" into WHS, increasing supply, helping to elevate the gap between demand.


Where I think the truly helpful effects come into play would be Moon Mining towers, and Jump Bridge Networks. Both of these mainly take place in Null Sec.
If the fuel prices increase, then so does the POS's moon goo output, as it will be passed on to the customer (the buyer).
Currently, there are many complex reactions (mainly the base 4, Crystalline Carbonide, Fernite Carbide, Titanium Carbide, Tungsten Carbide) that are already low-priced. With POS fuel declining, no one will want to take the initial loss (before the market adjusts, they will spend more on POS fuel then receive on C-Reaction output). The supply of these C-Reactions will decrease, causing the bottlenecks such as Tech, and R64's to DROP because they will not have the low-end c-reactions to react with. Eventually these will all equalize out to a closer average between the two current prices.
If the high-ends and the low ends are equalized, then t2 mat prices will be quite similar to their current prices.

0.0 Alliance Logistics:
Currently, Moon Goo is how most alliances foot the bill.
Lower returns on this passive income will inspire a need for them to cut their own ice to supply their Jump Bridge Network, as well as fuel their POS's and Super Fleets.
Same concept as the smaller corp scenario defined before, but on a larger scale, more PVP, more hot hot sweaty carebear love, both parties feel needed filling a role. More people getting immersed in a game due to bonding.
=Win + Win +...+N-Win'th.

:)
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#42 - 2011-10-06 12:29:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Ingvar Angst
True, we're definitely seeing different outcomes. For example... will more people go into low to mine ice? I suspect it'll be far less than you'd expect. Why do you think Hulkageddon brought about so many tears? There's a lot of people that play the game at a low level. They prefer a more peaceful environment... it's their nature, and they're not wrong for wanting that... it's simply who they are. As a result, it would only take one or two packs of roaming Narwhals popping their precious hulks for them to give up completely on the idea of mining outside of high sec. They'd either go back to mining rocks, or simply move on to a game that is more encompassing of their preferred style of play. Yes, Eve isn't supposed to be perfectly safe, but there's a reason many people seek as much safety as they can; it's their nature. So this nature alone will result in a drastic drop in supply and a correlating increases on anything and everything that requires pos fuels.

With T3 production... I like the comparison to Taco Bell in Alaska and Washington. However, the major difference I see is this... you'd be making people that live in Washington have to buy tacos at Alaska prices. Your example has the "industry" occuring in both places... tacos made and sold in AK vs those made and sold in WA. T3s are only supplied from wormholes, period. Everything that goes into a T3 is obtained through wormholes ( hence the need for ABC in all holes). It's intended to be primarily self-sufficient, except for one thing... that painful need to import ice fuels. (Well, two things, but don't get me started on not being able to assemble and refit T3's in a hole...) As a result, if T3 prices go up due to the increase in cost to make in holes, that price affects everyone from Alaska to Washington to Tibet, and it will do so painfully.

Now... you may think that's fine, everyone has a chance to buy them at the increased prices, but it's actually quite imbalanced. Null would have the greatest advantage at being able to afford T3s next to only the remaining wormhole corps themselves that have been able to survive the spike in prices and dwindling supply of fuel. Null would control the isk. Even more dangerous... you see what the Goons are doing with their push to control all of the major supplies of T2 industry in null? Imagine null run by one power bloc that decides they think wormhole corps have it too good, so they simply turn off the fuel spigots going into empire. What happens? Wormholes are strangled to death with no defense at all being available to them. They could crush wormhole space without having to undock. Too much power, too much ability to control areas of the game that should be outside their sphere of influence. Wormholes are more "null" than null keep in mind, as all holes are -1.0 space. As such, they have as much if not more rights to be able to control their own destinies.

As far as this benefitting null more... you may see that as a benefit, but as someone that doesn't live in empire null I see that as more of a problem. Again, it's not going to increase the population of null much at all. People with no interest now to live there won't magically develop an interest and move there. If they can't keep playing in a way they prefer, they'll leave. So who benefits? The pre-existing mega-alliances almost exclusively. Any small alliances/corps in null that currently are in or near ice systems will get steam-rolled at a power grab takes place to control the supply of ice fuels... this is inevitable. Hell, look at the current distribution of moons and who controls what and you'll see that. The small even in null will suffer, the huge will become larger and too much power will shift to those that don't need it.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Goose99
#43 - 2011-10-06 14:33:21 UTC
Remove rats from nullsec. This will force people there to rat in highsec.Big smile
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#44 - 2011-10-06 21:27:34 UTC
You cannot "escort" mining barges. They are soft targets and there is no practical means to intercept attackers before they blow up the barge/exhumer.

If it were possible to deploy warp bubbles in lowsec belts, it might be possible to escort barges. In the meantime they are a soft target that can be destroyed in a couple of salvos. Even CONCORD can't stop an Apocalypse suicide ganking in hisec.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Amarrius Ibn Pontificus
Legion Air
#45 - 2011-10-14 00:59:02 UTC
Considering that most icemining bots actually work in null sec and not high sec like some might like to make believe, I fail to see the point.
Billy Endashi
Doomheim
#46 - 2011-10-14 12:40:27 UTC
completely reckless. would wreck havoc on all the pos owners who do not have connections in null. my wh corp would be paying a tax to the nullsec alliances who would cartel the ice prices. again, so reckless i cant believe they even put it on the whiteboard. it's a disaster that even the most clouded mind can forsee.
Rico Minali
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2011-10-14 13:53:28 UTC
roidspliter wrote:
Nope I never look for Sympathy. In my opnion it is what it is. I just want to bring it to light, I think people should know the corruptness of the CSM



You are mistaking the CSM with an in-game alliance. Dont. Its stupid.

Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#48 - 2011-10-14 17:42:32 UTC
Is this the concept?

Ice ----> 0.0. ---> Ice prices cheaper in 0.0. ----> POS maintenance cheaper in 0.0. ----> T2 production cheaper in 0.0 ----> T2 mods/ships cheaper to 0.0 dwellers ----> T2 = 0.0.

If so, please make tag costs associated the purchase of Fed Navy gear reasonable so I can fit up my Vexor Navy Issue with Fed Navy gear (low sec = faction navy gear).



Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2011-10-14 20:17:20 UTC
I say...instead of removing ICE from any system we make it available in ALL systems. Every system should have at least one Ice Belt in it including WH space.

There...everybody go suck an Ice Cube and watch the market on POS fuels crash.

If you can set up a POS in High Sec then there should be Ice Belts in High Sec. Sames goes for Low and Null. WH space is a special case as CCP never intended corps and alliances to live there permanantly like we do now but now I wouldnt mind seeing Ice in WH space.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
Vastek Non
State War Academy
Caldari State
#50 - 2011-10-15 06:13:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Vastek Non
Crazy KSK wrote:
Yes I think it would profit eve very much if ice was removed from highsec


Well, it would certainly profit the nullsec empires who are pushing for it Roll

But then I guess thats the point of the whole drama isn't it.

If CCP can't see past the self interested loud squawks for more worms from the nullsec inhabitants (who already have the best of everything), and realise what a terrible idea removing HS ice is, then all hope is lost.

P.S. show me the high sec Alliances that have corp wallets numbered in the trillions as do the null sec moongoo/plexing/botting types (i.e. most of them probably excluding FA). Numbers most likely can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

Edit: CCP - fix the problem, kill the bots. That is all.
Astor Daeoli
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#51 - 2011-10-15 17:31:53 UTC
Is there a way for CCP to change the existing PVE ratting and mining isk model and to make it more immersive and less easily exploitable from BOTs?

I would like this to be one of the core focuses of changes to FiS. I wish is to see CCP focus on making FiS fun-in-space again with more immersive content and the removal, if possible of bot friendly grind content.

I think CCP would need to do more than just move ice from high sec to low sec/0.0. I would like to see CCP work more on the mechanics of mining to try to make it more immersive and not profitable to bot.

If ccp can't improve mining, then perhaps the existing mining system should be removed and all players be given access to a mining bot like ship?

CCP sent so much effort over the last year and a half on either adding grind to the game via planet-vile or adding content that does nothing to increase FiS game immersion. I hope CCP will now refocus on the games core PVE mechanics and PVP-sov-moon-goo mechanics .
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#52 - 2011-10-15 19:56:22 UTC
Resource gathering is *always* going to be tedious in some fashion. That's been true for every single MMO that I've played over the past decade.

And since existing bots can already run missions, what makes you think that they won't be able to handle any curve ball thrown by CCP developers? CCP needs to do a better job of identifying and banning bots - and make announcements when they do it.
IIIAsharakIII
The League of Extraordinary Assholes
Leviathan.
#53 - 2011-10-15 23:06:41 UTC
This is a very good idea.

It seems that Ice products in Eve Online are somewhat the equivalent of Oil.

Similarly, Ore is the equivalent of Steel.


In many respects, Eve ought to revolve around these two principle materials.


Moving Ice to low sec will make it the true rare and desirable material it's supposed to be.

The economics analysis was also very concise and eye opening. However, I DO NOT think this will affect the RMT/Bot population problems which plague this game.

Botting is just as easy in lower security space as it is in higher security space.
Vastek Non
State War Academy
Caldari State
#54 - 2011-10-16 05:36:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Vastek Non
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
Resource gathering is *always* going to be tedious in some fashion. That's been true for every single MMO that I've played over the past decade.

And since existing bots can already run missions, what makes you think that they won't be able to handle any curve ball thrown by CCP developers? CCP needs to do a better job of identifying and banning bots - and make announcements when they do it.


This is the problem in a nutshell. Generally in a software context, if a human can use it, the macro can do it better. My understanding is that most EVE macro's don't even use the client except as a method to access the data stream.

Once the basic mechanics of the game are known to the writer, they simply tell the bot what to look for in that data stream and 'voila', you have a bot that 'plays' the game perfectly, barring human inteference.

In Summary: CCP needs to ban the bots, and not punish legitimate players for their years of failing to try seriously to stem the problem.

And when they catch a botter: 1st time - 2 week ban, all botting assets confiscated.
2nd time - start looking for a new game (all accounts).
Adunh Slavy
#55 - 2011-10-16 08:30:12 UTC
Remove any ISK faucet from null sec, and remove most any 'stuff' that is not isk from high sec. There, everyone happy.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2011-10-16 15:24:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Vertisce Soritenshi
This is a very bad idea. I will say it again...

High Sec should not have to rely on Null Sec for POS fuels.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
Sor'Ral
Ascendance Of New Eden
Workers Trade Federation
#57 - 2011-10-16 15:34:02 UTC
Nullsec already has the best of everything (isk-wise) .... nerfing Hisec or WH's will do nothing to attract players.

Buffing Nullsec is NOT the solution to improve the playability of EVE ... a simple glance at the number of players choosing to live in Hisec vs. Nullsec shows that ... most players simply will NEVER want to live under the boots of a huge nullsec alliance ... they simply won't .... it's not what they play the game for and never will be.

Sure, improve Nullsec mechanics for those who love it there (a small % of the playerbase) - they deserve a good game too.

But your "average" players just want more immersive content .... we should have hundreds (not 5) epic arcs ...

New players should never be confused about "what to do next" after the tutorials ....

Nerfing Hisec will only drive players away from the game ... it's not going to fix Nullsec.
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#58 - 2011-10-16 17:58:08 UTC
Sor'Ral wrote:
Nullsec already has the best of everything (isk-wise) .... nerfing Hisec or WH's will do nothing to attract players.

Buffing Nullsec is NOT the solution to improve the playability of EVE ... a simple glance at the number of players choosing to live in Hisec vs. Nullsec shows that ... most players simply will NEVER want to live under the boots of a huge nullsec alliance ... they simply won't .... it's not what they play the game for and never will be.

Sure, improve Nullsec mechanics for those who love it there (a small % of the playerbase) - they deserve a good game too.

But your "average" players just want more immersive content .... we should have hundreds (not 5) epic arcs ...

New players should never be confused about "what to do next" after the tutorials ....

Nerfing Hisec will only drive players away from the game ... it's not going to fix Nullsec.


The only concern I'd have with more epic arcs and the like is sliding the game more towards a theme park than a sandbox, but I like the way you're thinking. Big smile

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#59 - 2011-10-16 18:40:12 UTC
My thoughts from the "OMG WTF NO HISEC ICE" thread in S&I...

From a "is it profitable" standpoint, removing ice from hisec is a GOOD thing. Too damn many bots as it is.[:twisted:]
(yes, I know null has bots, and low probably does too ... but meh)

Now, if CCP goes through with it, here's what we'll see happen:

1. the buyers will cry
2. the botters will cry
3. enterprising corporations and alliances will make bank as they move to lowsec to obtain the ice.

Now, from looking at dotlan, I haven't seen a SINGLE lowsec system that has ice without a station. That's a "bad thing" in the "safety" department, as it's nearly impossible to kick someone out of a system with NPC stations...

If they're really going to go through with this, I'd like to see CCP move at least some of the "permanent" ice fields (assuming there will still be "permanent" belts... regardless of whether or not they can be depleted) to deeper lowsec that doesn't have a station (i.e. not right next door to hisec). If it's going to be in grav sites (and a relative ***** to find... ), then it would be nice to get some of the nullsec variants as well...

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#60 - 2011-10-17 13:54:00 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
My thoughts from the "OMG WTF NO HISEC ICE" thread in S&I...

From a "is it profitable" standpoint, removing ice from hisec is a GOOD thing. Too damn many bots as it is.[:twisted:]
(yes, I know null has bots, and low probably does too ... but meh)

Now, if CCP goes through with it, here's what we'll see happen:

1. the buyers will cry
2. the botters will cry
3. enterprising corporations and alliances will make bank as they move to lowsec to obtain the ice.

Now, from looking at dotlan, I haven't seen a SINGLE lowsec system that has ice without a station. That's a "bad thing" in the "safety" department, as it's nearly impossible to kick someone out of a system with NPC stations...

If they're really going to go through with this, I'd like to see CCP move at least some of the "permanent" ice fields (assuming there will still be "permanent" belts... regardless of whether or not they can be depleted) to deeper lowsec that doesn't have a station (i.e. not right next door to hisec). If it's going to be in grav sites (and a relative ***** to find... ), then it would be nice to get some of the nullsec variants as well...


Clueless. Absolutely clueless.

What will really happen is this. Ice fuel prices will spike. As a result, everything produced from pos's in high sec and wormholes will spike. Smaller corps will find that it's no longer affordable to maintain a pos in high sec and wormhole space and will fold. Many of those people, having had the sand removed from their sandbox, will leave Eve. Some corps may take a shot at ice mining in low. However, after a few ganks, they'll give up and go back to high and mine rocks. Prices will continue to escalate. Forget about being able to afford a tengu unless you're in one of the null sec mega-alliances.

It's simply a game-breaking idea that will eventually drive people out of Eve. People aren't in low or null for a reason. They don't like it. Taking ice from high won't suddenly make them like it. If they can't afford to survive in Eve the way they want, they'll go. It's an incredibly stupid idea, and whomever at CCP first thought of it should be embarassed.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.