EVE General Discussion

I like that 2 pages after I asked these two really simple questions...

I, like every other person, know very well what the answer to those questions are.

Willful ignorance never fixes anything.

I think this game has been nerfed enough lets buff some shiz for once

I was waiting for the reference. Thanks for obliging me.

Here is a more than likely terribly thought out rookie idea, how about downsizing the potential number of bodies in any given corp/alliance. Then work on making corp/alliance controlled areas give real perks to the owners.

Would that lessen the 'blob', or a least make many of them.

Diplomacy is a factor but not where it ends. Though in the end not everyone is going to stop shooting you. If they do then you've created a situation where risk v reward would no longer support null being better income wise. The fact of even needing real diplomacy is also a factor. Again, even if roles were reversed and from e mechanical standpoint it was cheaper to build in null, 3 issues remain.
1) He isn't going for PvP, but over time is more likely to get it in low/null than in high. This is just a result of how people treat areas of space

2) Logistics. I could be missing something, but of those miners that do traverse to null I'm convinced they mostly didn't do it for veldspar. Production of low end minerals is needed but not something most want to incur extra risk for while not reaping any increased reward, especially when greater resources are right beside it. While highsec production is shoty on high ends the logistics of getting it to where you need are far easier.

It has been suggested by some that resources in null be given a higher density version of highsec resources. This would help ease logistical issues, but if of sufficient draw could leave highsec mining a comparatively dead and worthless profession even compared to current levels. Intended consequence?

3) Market. Even if you make production a terrible thing in highsec there still remains a need for an accessible marketplace to facilitate trade at the very least for those entities not large enough to create a self sustaining ecosystem internally. And even for those that are it would require they be able to locally produce all of their raw material needs to avoid a need for neutral, highsec hubs. This also ties in with logistics for anything not being produced for local consumption in low/null. Trading the excess for what you lack will still require greater efforts.

TL;DR: I agree with you regarding where he would likely end up, but that is as much a biproduct of the nature of non-highsec space as used by players as it is any coded game mechanics. In the end the only way I see to reverse the decision is to more or less break highsec industry comparatively speaking.

Ok, let's do it.

How bout for starters taxing tech moons? oh wait you already have the monopoly on that already nevermind

I'm actually a fan of the idea of moving moon mining to a PI like system. The alliance can put up a moon POCO and collect isk from taxes, but individual players actually do the mining, hauling, and selling.

Clearly, friend making needs to be nerfed. The NPC alt pubbie said so.

I never meant to insinuate it invalidates anything, but as is even if all cost were removed from nullsec manufacturing process as things currently stand manufacturing costs are low overall and a small portion of item costs. So long as centralized hubs provide easy mineral access for resources needed in large quantities that null/low can't or won't produce locally mineral resources will remain more costly in null and that will in all likelihood eat any margins gained over import.

A cost is a cost, and really when it comes to being able to secure space in null I'd thing you were in a better position than many. This again makes diplomacy a necessary aspect for what doesn't seem to be a highly desired nullsec population. It's easier to do without it and people will often do so even at greater costs.

This as I see it tends more to be purely mechanics induced than anything else. In truth a slight refactoring on build requirements could do wonders for rectifying it.

Yet market proximity creates some incentive as far as location of operations. All other things aside this is still a strong draw.

Wanting to be clear on this: I don't agree where things are currently from an industrial perspective, but at the same time even if it were reasonably rectified I'm not convinced the people who would be doing non-highsec industry then aren't the same people doing it now. The difference would need to be severe and near cripling as far as public facilities of the highsec side to have any affect on migrating people who had no real, pre-decided interest in producing in low/null.

That said is correcting the issue and making it more feasible to have more of your production activities and capacity fully supported in null a worthy goal that severely needs attention? Very much Yes.