These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CSM7 Dec Summit Topic - Nullsec

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Frying Doom
#101 - 2012-12-11 03:22:55 UTC
raskonalkov wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Oh as to ring mining, personally it seems like another CCP pipe dream, much like WiS.

In the mean time why not let us have a special miner we can fit on a barge and go at it.

We scan the moon, find out what it has, see if it makes us enough cash.

Then we mine it till it is done till next DT or someone ganks us for going to have a coffee.

Easy done easy fixed. No more top down passive welfare checks.

Lots of targets for gankers

It makes people do things for income again in Null.


CCP would have to reduce the requirements of tech needed to make modules and ships if they did that. Look at how much minerals prices went up after drone region and mission loot nerf.

Most players wouldn't want to spend EVE time mining in that amount. (Just though mineral prices would go up as well, since miners would mine moons and not asteroids.) (CCP could reinstate the drone region alloys, then make tech moons mineable, perhaps with some of the classic moon mining for tech, unless they wanted to reduce the amount needed). I would almost risk going to low sec to mine moons, but I doubt I could do it very long, with the danger involved.

Or perhaps, CCP could allow moons to be minded by POS as well as miners or just low sec moons mineable. The amount of miners would probably be small, so prices might not be too affected, give fights, as well as fun to mine them.

Actually if the balance the amount the harvesters get per minute to a reasonable amount why change the total amounts. It will be the free market completely and people who want to sit in space and take the risks could get huge amounts of isk.

It is risk vs reward. as you are mining in unprotected space not hiding in some subspace pocket that needs scanning down.
Yes prices might rise from a supply shortage but then like always in eve more people will go to get the cash and the price will drop.

As to the drone alloys, I don't get why people beat that particular dead horse, there removal made hi-sec mining worth while again just as active moon mining would give a much needed boost to areas not of Hi-sec.

And it will get back to the EvE standard of, he who puts in the time gets the rewards rather than as it is now he who chucks up a tower.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
raskonalkov
Tie Fighters Inc
#102 - 2012-12-11 03:40:23 UTC
No I like the drone region nerf, since I mine and don't lose ships often, but do need tech 2 items occasionally.

But I suppose CCP could introduce a rig to raise the amount of moon goo mined, The only hard part for roids is that they can be small, so raising mining amount more would really be nail biting, having to have a stop watch to mine well.

I mostly mean a man power point of view, not a free market point of view, yeah in free market it will find balance, but sometimes balance take a lot, so you need man power to do it. With that much mining, will sap the manpower, and won't be able to accomplish it.
raskonalkov
Tie Fighters Inc
#103 - 2012-12-11 03:41:11 UTC
BUY ALTS!!!!!!!!!! YOU ******

(expected response)
Frying Doom
#104 - 2012-12-11 05:44:45 UTC
raskonalkov wrote:
BUY ALTS!!!!!!!!!! YOU ******

(expected response)

No but I would expect that some of those currently destroying the value of Null minerals would move over to mine moons.

Oh I like the rig idea.

I think miners would pick up that slack quite well, as well as giving people a better risk vs reward in Null, lo and WHs.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Blastil
Aideron Robotics
Aideron Robotics.
#105 - 2012-12-28 15:55:49 UTC
Theodoric Darkwind wrote:
Blastil wrote:


in brief:
Nullsec is essentially entirely locked up by larger alliances because the system that exists only benefits top down financial gain, rather than bottom up. It is essentially impossible for new entities to enter 0.0 or to confront existing 0.0 alliances. This is a deterant for new players to move out to 0.0. Improving the health of 0.0 will require an entire reworking of the way 0.0 income works.


New entites enter nullsec by joining larger entities. The best way to get into nullsec as a new player is to join an existing nullsec corp. The best way for a small group to enter nullsec is to join an existing alliance as a corp.

If you want to confront an existing nullsec alliance and contest their sov then you need to be able to match their strength. A 30 man pirate corp is not and should not be an existential threat to an entity like TEST or Goons, but that 30 man corp is certainly capable of being a really annoying thorn in the side of a huge alliance even under the current mechanics if they know what/where/when to strike (i.e. money moons can be RFd in 1 cycle by a small fleet of dreads, faster than the owner can react usually, time your RF correctly and you can get the timer into the owners weakest TZ and possibly take the moon).


To clarify, i'm not suggesting that a 30 man alliance should be able to take over a 300 man alliance, but I feel that a 30 man fleet composed of battlecruisers and battleships should be able to (if unchecked) deal significant damage to the infrastructure of a sov-holding alliance. Maybe not take sov, but definately interrupt their economic machine and damage other infrastructure targets.

One reason why lowsec is broken is that there is no advantages to having small fleets, since there are no targets which would be better taken down with small fleets than with giant supercap blobs. (cyno-jammers excluded).

What I hope CCP is looking at is how to make 0.0 a strong, vibrant place, where the current power-structures still exist, but with plenty of space for independent and new alliance ventures to slip in. There should be new targets for sub-capital fleets, and capital fleets should become optional not required for 0.0 sov warfare, and pvp. Most of this problem revolves around POSs as the focus of 0.0 PVP

Right now no one (not even the people who do this game professionally) enjoys POS bashing as a mechanic, so I don't see why we need to even keep it around. This is a game, and if the people who play the game don't enjoy playing the game, you should probably get rid of that part of the game and make it different.
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#106 - 2012-12-28 16:21:16 UTC
Blastil wrote:
To clarify, i'm not suggesting that a 30 man alliance should be able to take over a 300 man alliance, but I feel that a 30 man fleet composed of battlecruisers and battleships should be able to (if unchecked) deal significant damage to the infrastructure of a sov-holding alliance. Maybe not take sov, but definately interrupt their economic machine and damage other infrastructure targets.


We all wants this.

The fundamental issue with nullsec is that the players have been making it work despite poor game mechanics for over five years now. It`s about time that the mechanics actually encouraged the play that CCP wants to see instead of content-creators having to work against the natural incentives when attempting to make things interesting.

Having low-level sov related `stuff` that is both vulnerable and worth defending is the key to making nullsec gameplay viable and compelling in the long term.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Noisrevbus
#107 - 2012-12-29 03:36:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
Varius Xeral wrote:
Blastil wrote:
To clarify, i'm not suggesting that a 30 man alliance should be able to take over a 300 man alliance, but I feel that a 30 man fleet composed of battlecruisers and battleships should be able to (if unchecked) deal significant damage to the infrastructure of a sov-holding alliance. Maybe not take sov, but definately interrupt their economic machine and damage other infrastructure targets.


We all wants this.

The fundamental issue with nullsec is that the players have been making it work despite poor game mechanics for over five years now. It`s about time that the mechanics actually encouraged the play that CCP wants to see instead of content-creators having to work against the natural incentives when attempting to make things interesting.

Having low-level sov related `stuff` that is both vulnerable and worth defending is the key to making nullsec gameplay viable and compelling in the long term.


Yes, and in the greater scope of things the interesting bit here is ISK and ships.

The very core of EVE is the faucet (+) and sink (-) of ISK, creation and destruction.

If you look at the trends in the game: both of these have been further and further pushed from ships (players, PvP) to infra (environment, PvE), from the Dominion expansion up until today (Retribution).

Infrastructure create a higher portion of ISK today relative player action, and also represent a higher portion of ISK destroyed as ships fielded have efficient survival-rates or replacement-rates. The ongoing trend for the past few years under the Dominion Sov-system has been to devalue, the value of ships - the tools used in player action.

You can see traces of it in the terminology used throughout the community: small groups are "irrelevant", roams have become "lolroams" that do not impact the world, where fleets are "welped" at leisure and the way to beat an opponent these days is not to kill their fleets and force them to PvE, it's to break their morale and "making their members not interested in logging in". All of those, quite common, comments should be gigantic, glaring red, warning signs to a developer. Yet so far we do not only see a lack of reaction, but also a continued development in the other direction with more faucets (new premier ways to make ISK with relative ease) and less sinks (improvements to- or new cheap ships).

As long as faucets trumph sinks in the manner they do, the value of numerics will continue to skyrocket and push the meta towards ever growing scale. It will continue to make holding grid more important than inflicting losses, and it will continue to profile infra over ships, since infra is also comparatively inexpensive and hitpoint-based. Compare the EHP of a Titan and a POS - next compare their pricetags. Since Titans are still attributed player action and "inplay, while in play" they are, and i've made this comparison before, usually easier to interact with for a smaller group. Why do you think so many Supers die outside of sov-fare? At smaller scales (as well as at certain larger scales) they are often the conflict driver. You jump at the opportunity to kill a 20-80b Super, not a 500m POS where you later have to hold the grid so it's not instantly replaced by another cheap POS; or the people you fought for the grid replaced by another cheap fleet.

There is no greater buff to "small gang roaming PvP" than having PvE ISK creation in the hands of players in ships, in space that are worthwhile killing. When PvP (ship explosion) is meaningful again, the interaction between scales will also be so. Having more ships will be proportionally better. Note, proportionally: it won't make it easy for a 30-man group to evict a 300-man group and take their space; but it will make it worthwhile (profitable, encouraged, incentive). There will also be incentives to actually fly around when EVE is yet again played in space, with a constant presence in space as opposed to sitting with a comserver running for alarms while playing other games. I've always said that, that is the reason you should look positively on roaming PvP: because it brings content to your doorstep, and spread content game-wide.

The amusing bit is that this has transpired so far off the cliff that the community is almost unanimous when it comes to these issues. Sizable, well- top-down organized and casual-minded groups, like Goons, want ISK creation back in player hands and make suggestions with that in mind. Supercapital-amassing groups, like PL, are also aware of the grid-controlling nature of Titans and have made suggestions akin to turning them into portable stations instead. The whole community may not see eye-to-eye on every issue, but we are collectively pretty far ahead... that's both admirable and scary at the same time.
Aridicles
First Republic Citizens and Senate
#108 - 2013-01-17 22:25:05 UTC
corestwo wrote:
Even without details posted, I have feedback for you already. Big smile

Read this and give it to CCP: http://themittani.com/features/addressing-tritanium-problem

These, as well.
http://themittani.com/features/vision-thing
http://themittani.com/features/creation-and-destruction
http://themittani.com/features/destroying-shipyards

Combined, they cover a lot of ground regarding the economy and industry in nullsec, and why it's important. They also talk a lot about the idea of "bottom up" income.

Bottom up income is simply, we want an alliance to be able to thrive and function on the basis of the actions of its membership, rather than on moon mining, or taxing renters. For that to be the case, people need to want to live in an alliance's space and do all their activities there. They should want to make their money, by ratting, or mining, or by PI, or what have you, and the alliance should be able to collect taxes on those activities; note that for an alliance to be able to do that, a tax must be obligatory. For mining, it's not; I address this in the "Addressing the Tritanium Problem" article.

When it comes to taxes on commerce, it should actually be worth doing commerce in nullsec. That means improving the production facilities in some way or another, covered most thoroughly in the "Destroying the Shipyards" article. It means ability to set and collect taxes on those facilities, which admittedly already exists; however, with the rock bottom taxes on production in highsec, there isn't much room to adjust things there (this is a symptom of highsec production fees being too low, though). An alliance should be able to set its market fees as well. Right now we collect the broker fee, but can't set it, and the sales tax is still a sink. Ideally, we'd be able to set and collect both, though simply being able to set and collect the broker fee would be sufficient.

Finally, moon mining. CCP has talked about Ring Mining, and a lot of us who are interested in the topic have a lot of fears about it. Ring mining comes across as a jesus feature, when on its own it will do little to address the problems that nullsec has. While we like the general idea of replacing moon mining with a bottom-up income source that we can tax (hopefully; on the surface it would have the same problems that regular mining does with taxation), we worry that developing a complete, brand new system like that will absorb all of CCP's limited development time, leaving the many other problems the area of space has untouched as a result.

More thoughts to come if I think of them.


Importantly if Nullsec Industry is buffed the link between Nullsec and Highsec must be broken by stopping the movement of low-value high-volume goods between the two. For example by preventing Jump Freighters from entering Highsec.

To make importation from Jita less desirable it must be both more difficult and less necessary. Similarly to prevent Nullsec flooding High-Sec with cheap goods this must be made more difficult by preventing the use of Jump Freighters and Freighters for this task.

Trade between Nullsec and Highsec should be restricted to low-volume high-value goods that will be undertaken mostly by Blockade Runners.

Another thought would be to eliminate direct Highsec to Nullsec routes and widen the Lowsec buffer between the two.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#109 - 2013-01-17 23:08:49 UTC
Aridicles wrote:
Importantly if Nullsec Industry is buffed the link between Nullsec and Highsec must be broken by stopping the movement of low-value high-volume goods between the two. For example by preventing Jump Freighters from entering Highsec.

To make importation from Jita less desirable it must be both more difficult and less necessary. Similarly to prevent Nullsec flooding High-Sec with cheap goods this must be made more difficult by preventing the use of Jump Freighters and Freighters for this task.

Trade between Nullsec and Highsec should be restricted to low-volume high-value goods that will be undertaken mostly by Blockade Runners.

Another thought would be to eliminate direct Highsec to Nullsec routes and widen the Lowsec buffer between the two.


If nullsec industry is properly incentivised then mass-exportation becomes obsoleted simply by the new-found ability to produce locally, specifically nerfing it on top of that is pointless.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#110 - 2013-01-17 23:13:13 UTC
Aridicles wrote:
Importantly if Nullsec Industry is buffed the link between Nullsec and Highsec must be broken by stopping the movement of low-value high-volume goods between the two.

You say "must". Why "must" this be done?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Aridicles
First Republic Citizens and Senate
#111 - 2013-01-18 02:36:11 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Aridicles wrote:
Importantly if Nullsec Industry is buffed the link between Nullsec and Highsec must be broken by stopping the movement of low-value high-volume goods between the two.

You say "must". Why "must" this be done?


To attract industrialists to Nullsec they should be more productive in Nullsec than Highsec which is the opposite of the current state of affairs. To prevent the flow of volume goods simply reversing (from the current Jita->Nullsec to Nullsec->Jita) and wiping out the margins of Highsec Industrialists there should be a strong barrier to moving high-volume goods between Nullsec and Highsec.
Aridicles
First Republic Citizens and Senate
#112 - 2013-01-18 02:52:02 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Aridicles wrote:
Importantly if Nullsec Industry is buffed the link between Nullsec and Highsec must be broken by stopping the movement of low-value high-volume goods between the two. For example by preventing Jump Freighters from entering Highsec.

To make importation from Jita less desirable it must be both more difficult and less necessary. Similarly to prevent Nullsec flooding High-Sec with cheap goods this must be made more difficult by preventing the use of Jump Freighters and Freighters for this task.

Trade between Nullsec and Highsec should be restricted to low-volume high-value goods that will be undertaken mostly by Blockade Runners.

Another thought would be to eliminate direct Highsec to Nullsec routes and widen the Lowsec buffer between the two.


If nullsec industry is properly incentivised then mass-exportation becomes obsoleted simply by the new-found ability to produce locally, specifically nerfing it on top of that is pointless.


Pointless if the method of incentivisation does not mean Nullsec Industrialists produce more cheaply than Highsec Industrialists. If this occurred the flow of high-volume goods would simply reverse and Highsec Industrialists would have their already low margins degraded.

What is needed is a solution that supports vibrant industry in both sectors.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#113 - 2013-01-18 11:22:33 UTC
Aridicles wrote:
corestwo wrote:
Even without details posted, I have feedback for you already. Big smile

Read this and give it to CCP: http://themittani.com/features/addressing-tritanium-problem

These, as well.
http://themittani.com/features/vision-thing
http://themittani.com/features/creation-and-destruction
http://themittani.com/features/destroying-shipyards

Combined, they cover a lot of ground regarding the economy and industry in nullsec, and why it's important. They also talk a lot about the idea of "bottom up" income.

Bottom up income is simply, we want an alliance to be able to thrive and function on the basis of the actions of its membership, rather than on moon mining, or taxing renters. For that to be the case, people need to want to live in an alliance's space and do all their activities there. They should want to make their money, by ratting, or mining, or by PI, or what have you, and the alliance should be able to collect taxes on those activities; note that for an alliance to be able to do that, a tax must be obligatory. For mining, it's not; I address this in the "Addressing the Tritanium Problem" article.

When it comes to taxes on commerce, it should actually be worth doing commerce in nullsec. That means improving the production facilities in some way or another, covered most thoroughly in the "Destroying the Shipyards" article. It means ability to set and collect taxes on those facilities, which admittedly already exists; however, with the rock bottom taxes on production in highsec, there isn't much room to adjust things there (this is a symptom of highsec production fees being too low, though). An alliance should be able to set its market fees as well. Right now we collect the broker fee, but can't set it, and the sales tax is still a sink. Ideally, we'd be able to set and collect both, though simply being able to set and collect the broker fee would be sufficient.

Finally, moon mining. CCP has talked about Ring Mining, and a lot of us who are interested in the topic have a lot of fears about it. Ring mining comes across as a jesus feature, when on its own it will do little to address the problems that nullsec has. While we like the general idea of replacing moon mining with a bottom-up income source that we can tax (hopefully; on the surface it would have the same problems that regular mining does with taxation), we worry that developing a complete, brand new system like that will absorb all of CCP's limited development time, leaving the many other problems the area of space has untouched as a result.

More thoughts to come if I think of them.


Importantly if Nullsec Industry is buffed the link between Nullsec and Highsec must be broken by stopping the movement of low-value high-volume goods between the two. For example by preventing Jump Freighters from entering Highsec.

To make importation from Jita less desirable it must be both more difficult and less necessary. Similarly to prevent Nullsec flooding High-Sec with cheap goods this must be made more difficult by preventing the use of Jump Freighters and Freighters for this task.

Trade between Nullsec and Highsec should be restricted to low-volume high-value goods that will be undertaken mostly by Blockade Runners.

Another thought would be to eliminate direct Highsec to Nullsec routes and widen the Lowsec buffer between the two.


What good things does this accomplish?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Aridicles
First Republic Citizens and Senate
#114 - 2013-01-19 00:00:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Aridicles
Malcanis wrote:
Aridicles wrote:
Importantly if Nullsec Industry is buffed the link between Nullsec and Highsec must be broken by stopping the movement of low-value high-volume goods between the two. For example by preventing Jump Freighters from entering Highsec.

To make importation from Jita less desirable it must be both more difficult and less necessary. Similarly to prevent Nullsec flooding High-Sec with cheap goods this must be made more difficult by preventing the use of Jump Freighters and Freighters for this task.

Trade between Nullsec and Highsec should be restricted to low-volume high-value goods that will be undertaken mostly by Blockade Runners.

Another thought would be to eliminate direct Highsec to Nullsec routes and widen the Lowsec buffer between the two.


What good things does this accomplish?


The objectives of this are:
1. Alliances will require a strong industrial base in 0.0
2. Industry presents targets for small gangs e.g. Miners, Haulers and if CCP addresses 'Farms and Fields' a range of economic targets.
3. Alliances must defend their space to protect their Industry and ultimately their ability to wage war

The end result will be more players living and working in 0.0 and more opportunities for meaningful PVP.