These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Consequences of A Bored Null
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#161 - 2013-01-31 07:33:53 UTC
NEONOVUS wrote:
Simple fix to hisec industry stuff.

Turn 20 slots into 10, award all current items in queue completed to owners (It is a fair thing).
Thus the hisec matter is solved as now its make a POS or go expand out over the slots.

Time takes is 1 dt.
Well maybe more depending on the awarding of items.

Also there was a thread already posted of the moons.
Why?
Because time travel


There's still 3 problems remaining:

(1) POS are horribadawful to work with

(2) Null still doesn't have enough production slots to make even enough ammo for itself.

(3) The sheer number of POS that would be required

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
lollerwaffle
Perkone
Caldari State
#162 - 2013-01-31 07:35:53 UTC
Mistah Ewedynao wrote:
Nope....

Have been drinking too much,

Believe the Goonz Foolz.


Translated:

"I have no argument, therefore I shall revert to gibberish, oh and blame goons too, that ALWAYS lends strength to any argument, even when there isn't one."

You're welcome
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#163 - 2013-01-31 07:47:16 UTC
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Dinsdale's operation could work if he's really dealing in that much volume and has products with a good margin.


But I think he is way over estimating POS manufacturing in highsec. I've scouted at least a dozen highsec systems for available moons (ended up going to lowsec to find one). Many were offline, and if I had to throw out a number, about a third. And the vast majority only had labs.


I focused on 2 main items: DC II's and Nano II's. (both had, and still have, great margins)
I also made T2 rigs, but that was more sideline.
Hob II's were also great margin, but required insane effort in the copying/inventing area.

I also made intermediate products, like oscillators, but that market was highly volatile.
There was also a brief foray into cap mfg, however cap components are ALWAYS built at low sec stations if the mfg slots are available, because of the volume issues, among other things.

I gave the whole thing up in June because I was tired of the daily grind, and hugely angry with the attack Soundwave orchestrated on data core agents. That has worked out to a nerf between 80 and 90 % on those agents.

I never made a single module or component at a station, mainly because I could never guarantee slots. I made a minimum of 200 items a day, weekends more. That would be minimum 20 ten run BPC's every day. A 10 run DCII BPC took up about 20 hours to mfg if I remember correctly, and 10 hours for a 10 run Nano II BPC.

And I was small potatoes compared to the serious industrialists.
On any given day thousands of nano's and DC II's change hands in just Jita.
No way, absolutely no way, the majority of those are being mfg'ed in stations.

As for mfg slots at POS's, you and I can disagree. I know what I saw, and still see re: mfg slots at POS's.

But once again, CCP could end all these arguments by running some simple SQL commands and publishing the results.
Instead, they watch silently as the propaganda wars are fought.

Wonder why they do that, when some facts that are at their fingertips would end all this drama and conjecture.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#164 - 2013-01-31 08:06:14 UTC
Quote:



Really? You make all your T2 modules in stations?
Tell me more about the mechanics of that, given that when I ran a personal large POS I had 3 Equipment assembly arrays going and Component Assembly Arrays. I would have the equipment arrays going full bore, plus usually 1 component array.
That is 28 slots full bore. Now, given the 25% mfg bonus, that works out to the equivalent of about 37 mfg slots I had at my single POS.

The system I was in had 3 stations, 50 slots at each station.
It also had 28 moons. Some time ago, I did a survey one night when I was bored. EVERY moon had a POS up, with about 80% turned on.
If we low ball each online POS at 25 mfg slots, that works out to 28 * 25 *.8 = 560 mfg slots at POS's, compared to the 150 slots at stations. And we all know that 28 moons in a system is far below average.

You want to make BS's, and BC's, sure, you crank up a long run at a station. You want to make anything else, you do it a POS, where you control the means of production.

So please stop with your ridiculous statements.


There is a system in caldari space that has more slots than the entire tribute region. I have few issues getting a slot and it saves me a small fortune. Im willing to bet the bulk of those POSs are for research and invention.
Rellik B00n
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#165 - 2013-01-31 08:41:28 UTC
so the next question is:

large alliances have complete control of the tech in game. This is a fact.

Without resorting to 'the minerals i mine are free' there is a significant profit from tech - even taking into consideration labour and running costs. Its a very, very large mostly passive income.

It is a major building block of T2 production. In fact it is THE major building block of T2 production.

so as I see it this poses a couple of further questions:

1. if the 'average' members of large alliances had equal shares of the profits from tech would that negate the loss of operating in null sec - assuming that you DID have enough slots?

2. While the profits from the major T2 component are going into the alliance pocket to cover Titans etc is there any reason to change the current situation at all?

I have seen your arguments as to why the current situation is bad but tbh your leaders are large contributors to this situation. You are kind of sayinng 'it costs too much to operate in null' as one of your arguments whilst at the same time your organisation as a whole is sitting on the biggest ISK source in the entire universe. It doesnt add up.

It would make more sense to me that passive income like this should go into the pockets of the whole alliance to help make it worthwhile operating in null and then tax from your feudal system should cover the Titans, ship replacements etc.

So whilst you can argue that high sec industry is tied into null sec production it is equally plain to see that any change to high sec in that area should be balanced with both null sec production changes AND null sec moon mining changes.
[Of a request for change ask: Who Benefits?](https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=199765)
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#166 - 2013-01-31 10:25:57 UTC
Rellik B00n wrote:
so the next question is:

large alliances have complete control of the tech in game. This is a fact.

Without resorting to 'the minerals i mine are free' there is a significant profit from tech - even taking into consideration labour and running costs. Its a very, very large mostly passive income.

It is a major building block of T2 production. In fact it is THE major building block of T2 production.

so as I see it this poses a couple of further questions:

1. if the 'average' members of large alliances had equal shares of the profits from tech would that negate the loss of operating in null sec - assuming that you DID have enough slots?

2. While the profits from the major T2 component are going into the alliance pocket to cover Titans etc is there any reason to change the current situation at all?

I have seen your arguments as to why the current situation is bad but tbh your leaders are large contributors to this situation. You are kind of sayinng 'it costs too much to operate in null' as one of your arguments whilst at the same time your organisation as a whole is sitting on the biggest ISK source in the entire universe. It doesnt add up.

It would make more sense to me that passive income like this should go into the pockets of the whole alliance to help make it worthwhile operating in null and then tax from your feudal system should cover the Titans, ship replacements etc.

So whilst you can argue that high sec industry is tied into null sec production it is equally plain to see that any change to high sec in that area should be balanced with both null sec production changes AND null sec moon mining changes.


Why would we spend more isk building in null sec when we can build the same stuff cheaper in empire?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#167 - 2013-01-31 10:35:54 UTC
Rellik B00n wrote:
so the next question is:

large alliances have complete control of the tech in game. This is a fact.

Without resorting to 'the minerals i mine are free' there is a significant profit from tech - even taking into consideration labour and running costs. Its a very, very large mostly passive income.

It is a major building block of T2 production. In fact it is THE major building block of T2 production.

so as I see it this poses a couple of further questions:

1. if the 'average' members of large alliances had equal shares of the profits from tech would that negate the loss of operating in null sec - assuming that you DID have enough slots...?


Would a tech subsidy cover the additional cost of building in 0.0?

Maybe, but why not just take the subsidy and continue building in hi-sec anyway?

There's also the issue that sov 0.0 simply doesn't have the capacity. We can't even supply all the ammo we need from our own stations because they have so few lines.

So it's a two part issue:

(1) Producing in sov 0.0 is horribly uneconomic because of the huge subsidies that producing in hi-sec gets. (Free stations, no sov bills, etc etc, you get the drift)

(2) Sov 0.0 physically can't produce enough to support itself because manufacturing stations have so few lines and there's a cap of 1 station per system.

So to make producing in 0.0 viable, 0.0 outposts first have to be hugely buffed so that they can at least potentially be upgraded to be as good as a big multi-station hi-sec system like Nonni or Sobaseki. Then producers in hi-sec will have to start paying a realistic price for the facilities they enjoy.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#168 - 2013-01-31 10:38:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Rellik B00n wrote:

I have seen your arguments as to why the current situation is bad but tbh your leaders are large contributors to this situation. You are kind of sayinng 'it costs too much to operate in null' as one of your arguments whilst at the same time your organisation as a whole is sitting on the biggest ISK source in the entire universe. It doesnt add up.


They are waiting for mom CCP to implement canned content to add bottom up alliance income. You know, the opposite of what a sandbox is about and worrying similar to other bad games.

This would keep otrageous income from moons PLUS additional otrageous income in the form of taxes. Why would the leadership be happy of just milking moons when they can ALSO milk corpies?

Nobody, ever, answered me this tiny question: why do all play like this is a game based on guilds (a la WoW) where guildies pay the organizations, when EvE is a game based on corporations (including shares, tickers and similar stuff) where guildies are employees and employees tend to be PAID not to be taxed?

Edit: don't come call the ship replacement program like it's the Big Thing. Even in RL your company gives you a truck to drive, a computerized lathe, ammo to shoot and generally the tools + consummables of the trade. THEN the company ALSO pays you a wage. Something that - incredible in a game based so much on ISK - the directors never mention and the grunts always forget.
Also, I know the magnitude of market manipulations and other things they do... that requires hugenormous amounts of money to play with. Money that should have gone to the grunts, but no, it stays in few wallets and is used to implement the next big market manipulation and similar. It's exactly like in RL, money trickles down to the populace / grunts keeping them poor, while flowing abundant at the high spheres.
Is CCP responsibility to forcibly add canned behaviors to avoid this? Or should just the grunts revolt against their greedy bosses?

This also puts a fact in evidence: that there's an issue with the game design, whereas there's little effort for a "state" management (that would include taxes management on a macro dimension), people do with the tools they are given ("mere" corp / alliance) and this gets messy results. But the outcome is still the same: a "core" that cashes in trillions, while the grunts are left to themselves and come beg for bottom up income on the forums.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#169 - 2013-01-31 10:46:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Malcanis wrote:

There's also the issue that sov 0.0 simply doesn't have the capacity. We can't even supply all the ammo we need from our own stations because they have so few lines.

So it's a two part issue:

(1) Producing in sov 0.0 is horribly uneconomic because of the huge subsidies that producing in hi-sec gets. (Free stations, no sov bills, etc etc, you get the drift)

(2) Sov 0.0 physically can't produce enough to support itself because manufacturing stations have so few lines and there's a cap of 1 station per system.

So to make producing in 0.0 viable, 0.0 outposts first have to be hugely buffed so that they can at least potentially be upgraded to be as good as a big multi-station hi-sec system like Nonni or Sobaseki. Then producers in hi-sec will have to start paying a realistic price for the facilities they enjoy.


The issue is straightforward: the evident inability of null sec industry and production to be viable is a design choice, not a "bug".
It's fair to push to change it, but as long as it's presented like some mysterious design oversight, pleas are going nowhere.

CCP just don't WANT people to build and refine in nullsec, the limitations i.e. on POS refineries are not a "typo" in a database record, they are mechanics put in expressly to make refining stupidly un-competitive.

Now, in an ideal case a CCP game designer would reply or make a blog about why they want nullsec to lack manufacturing and refining and whether they want to keep the situation as is or they think it should change.

Until then, keep pushing... but that's a game design change request, not a call to sort out some incredibly absurd mistake (see all those threads calling for the "absurd" of null sec vs hi sec disparity). It's a spiteful game design choice of theirs, but it's a choice.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Thutmose I
Rattium Incorporated
#170 - 2013-01-31 10:49:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Thutmose I
Rellik B00n wrote:
so the next question is:

large alliances have complete control of the tech in game. This is a fact.

Without resorting to 'the minerals i mine are free' there is a significant profit from tech - even taking into consideration labour and running costs. Its a very, very large mostly passive income.

It is a major building block of T2 production. In fact it is THE major building block of T2 production.

so as I see it this poses a couple of further questions:

1. if the 'average' members of large alliances had equal shares of the profits from tech would that negate the loss of operating in null sec - assuming that you DID have enough slots?

2. While the profits from the major T2 component are going into the alliance pocket to cover Titans etc is there any reason to change the current situation at all?

I have seen your arguments as to why the current situation is bad but tbh your leaders are large contributors to this situation. You are kind of sayinng 'it costs too much to operate in null' as one of your arguments whilst at the same time your organisation as a whole is sitting on the biggest ISK source in the entire universe. It doesnt add up.

It would make more sense to me that passive income like this should go into the pockets of the whole alliance to help make it worthwhile operating in null and then tax from your feudal system should cover the Titans, ship replacements etc.

So whilst you can argue that high sec industry is tied into null sec production it is equally plain to see that any change to high sec in that area should be balanced with both null sec production changes AND null sec moon mining changes.


to number 1:

I see numbers of 300-400 or so existing tech moons floating around. If each of these gives about 170M/day (current prices of 78k / tech, after fuel), then all of them will generate materials worth 60B/day. This is going into the alliance wallet. Now consider how the majority of the individuals who make isk make it: ratting.

a mediocre ratter can easily pull in 50m/hr. that 60B number comes out to 1200 ratter hours a day.

Considering that the CFC has at least 20k members, then if 6% of them ratted for 1h/day they would gain as much isk as the combined total of all tech moons (not all of which are owned by the CFC)

As for the total average income from the tech moons: assuming that the CFC did own all of the tech, then the 60B/day would come out to less than 3M/day per capita. Now, this is about the same as every member going and shooting 2-3 rats in a belt a day.

If the coalitions had to rely on ratting to make their 60B/day (say via 20-25% taxes), then two main things would happen:

A large number of the members would refuse to rat, as ratting is boring (this would decrease stability, which may be seen as a good thing).

The money supply would increase drastically (tech does not affect the money supply), which generally has bad effects on the economy if no sinks are added as well.

in other words: they would just rat for isk to buy stuff in empire, rather than try to make tech. If they could get tech individually, most would not even try.
Rellik B00n
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#171 - 2013-01-31 10:52:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Rellik B00n
ah good VV.

I was just considering trying to track you down to ask an opinion about this and here you are Smile

without derailing the thread does anyone have a figure that is close to exact concerning what each tech moon is worth per cycle after running costs?

edit: lol answered cheers!

VV: The points made above concerning the industry aspect of null are on the money for me, im glad you made them.

2nd edit: so if you had to mine tech like you have to mine rocks what would the projected result be?
[Of a request for change ask: Who Benefits?](https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=199765)
Thutmose I
Rattium Incorporated
#172 - 2013-01-31 11:02:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Thutmose I
Rellik B00n wrote:
ah good VV.

I was just considering trying to track you down to ask an opinion about this and here you are Smile

without derailing the thread does anyone have a figure that is close to exact concerning what each tech moon is worth per cycle after running costs?

edit: lol answered cheers!

VV: The points made above concerning the industry aspect of null are on the money for me, im glad you made them.

2nd edit: so if you had to mine tech like you have to mine rocks what would the projected result be?


Going based on the majority of the people in null sec which I have interacted with (which is no where near the majority of null sec) If you have to mine tech in any way similar to mining belts, or killing rats, then they would not do it.

So, assuming tech is still restricted to one area of eve, the prices would go up even more, as the supply would go down. If tech got evenly distributed, then the thing i mentioned above with taxation might be done rather than trying to mine the tech, as killing the rats for tax doesn't really require the coordination that mining and pooling tech does.

Whether tech as income exists or not, the major coalitions will be able to get their giant incomes, but as it is, moon goo is probably one of the best such methods for the eve economy.

Edit:
I should probably mention that if it did get evenly distributed with mining like rocks needed, then the supply wouldn't go down as much, as it would then be available to 50-60k people rather than 20-40k, so more would be willing to mine it.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#173 - 2013-01-31 11:03:45 UTC
Rellik B00n wrote:

2nd edit: so if you had to mine tech like you have to mine rocks what would the projected result be?

Unknown. That would depend entirely on how many mined it.
Captain Death1
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#174 - 2013-01-31 11:12:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Death1
funny how null needs so much help yet most of the botters in game are from null that is a ton of isk maybe they need to cut the null botters off from pooring isk in game then we can talk about high sec (mind you most of the null players are not even paying subs maybe its time to force the vets to pay a sub for main and all alts anyone can b$tch and cry for free
Brooks Puuntai
Solar Nexus.
#175 - 2013-01-31 11:25:34 UTC
Captain Death1 wrote:
funny how null needs so much help yet most of the botters in game are from null that is a ton of isk maybe they need to cut the null botters off from pooring isk in game then we can talk about high sec (mind you most of the null players are not even paying subs maybe its time to force the vets to pay a sub for main and all alts anyone can b$tch and cry for free


I don't even know where to start with this.

CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE / Dynamic New Eden
Rellik B00n
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#176 - 2013-01-31 11:28:25 UTC
Thutmose I wrote:
I see numbers of 300-400 or so existing tech moons floating around. If each of these gives about 170M/day (current prices of 78k / tech, after fuel), then all of them will generate materials worth 60B/day. This is going into the alliance wallet.


just borrowing this one part of your post:

60,000,000,000 x 365 = 21,900,000,000,000 ISK per year.

erring on the side of caution say the biggest alliance in game owns a quarter of the tech moons:

21,900,000,000,000 / 4 = 5,475,000,000,000

5 thousand, 4 hundred and 75 BILLION ISK a year.

to go back to my previous point - you could easily subsidise manufacturers enough to make building in null worth it (assume enough slots) with a tiny portion of this ISK.

so if it isnt being used to make living in null worthwhile, what is it being used for?

VV's point earlier about it being deliberately implented this way by CCP interests me as well. Id like to hear some confirmation from the powers that be about this.
[Of a request for change ask: Who Benefits?](https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=199765)
Thutmose I
Rattium Incorporated
#177 - 2013-01-31 11:40:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Thutmose I
Rellik B00n wrote:
Thutmose I wrote:
I see numbers of 300-400 or so existing tech moons floating around. If each of these gives about 170M/day (current prices of 78k / tech, after fuel), then all of them will generate materials worth 60B/day. This is going into the alliance wallet.


just borrowing this one part of your post:

60,000,000,000 x 365 = 21,900,000,000,000 ISK per year.

erring on the side of caution say the biggest alliance in game owns a quarter of the tech moons:

21,900,000,000,000 / 4 = 5,475,000,000,000

5 thousand, 4 hundred and 75 BILLION ISK a year.

to go back to my previous point - you could easily subsidise manufacturers enough to make building in null worth it (assume enough slots) with a tiny portion of this ISK.

so if it isnt being used to make living in null worthwhile, what is it being used for?

VV's point earlier about it being deliberately implented this way by CCP interests me as well. Id like to hear some confirmation from the powers that be about this.


That may look like a lot per year, but you need to compare it to the number of players involved, this is why I stuck to the daily income, assuming that all of those tech moons are shared across the HBC and CFC, which would be about 30-40k characters, then the income is less than 2M/day per character. This isn't really enough to subsidize manufacturing well enough.

What the income is used for is things like holding sov (this alone probably takes a few billion a day) and ship replacement programs. Some is probably embezzled, but when you look at where the actual isk is coming from, most of it actually comes from a combination of members in 0.0 ratting and people running missions in high sec, so a good portion of the isk that the coalitions get from their moons originally came from their members.

The moon goo mainly provides a way for isk to get from the members of the group to the group itself, which is then mostly used for infrastructure for the group.

Edit:

Goons alone hold 107 systems. These have a minimal cost of 6m/day, with, after various upgrades, probably averaging closer to 10M/day. Just using the 6M/day number, that is 642M/day just to hold sov, if you want that in isk/year: 234B/year on the minimal amount of isk required to hold their sov. This is just goons.

If you then factor in the cost of ship replacements, Ihub upgrades, cyno alts, non moon goo pos fuel, then it starts to add up to quite a lot of isk required to run a major group, still not quite as high as the total income, but enough to make subsidizing industry a strain on the wallet.

Edit 2:

The largest alliances have about 10k people in them, so that 5T isk is considered to be spread among say half of them (assume half are inactive/cyno alts), which comes to 1B/member each year. This is not a very large amount (even 5B/year is not a lot), hardly enough to subsidize direct manufacturing when it could be used instead to pay for the ships already mass produced, cheaply in empire.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#178 - 2013-01-31 11:59:36 UTC
Rellik B00n wrote:
Thutmose I wrote:
I see numbers of 300-400 or so existing tech moons floating around. If each of these gives about 170M/day (current prices of 78k / tech, after fuel), then all of them will generate materials worth 60B/day. This is going into the alliance wallet.


just borrowing this one part of your post:

60,000,000,000 x 365 = 21,900,000,000,000 ISK per year.

erring on the side of caution say the biggest alliance in game owns a quarter of the tech moons:

21,900,000,000,000 / 4 = 5,475,000,000,000

5 thousand, 4 hundred and 75 BILLION ISK a year.

to go back to my previous point - you could easily subsidise manufacturers enough to make building in null worth it (assume enough slots) with a tiny portion of this ISK.

so if it isnt being used to make living in null worthwhile, what is it being used for?

VV's point earlier about it being deliberately implented this way by CCP interests me as well. Id like to hear some confirmation from the powers that be about this.


90% of the tech moons are controlled by 3 alliances, and they've overwhelmingly concentrated in one corner of the map. What about alliances who don't get any of the tech goodness?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#179 - 2013-01-31 12:00:16 UTC
I don't believe CCP will ever improve Null-sec industry significantly.

Because If they did we wouldn't need to be paying additional subs for all those Jita alts would we? Income that CCP depends on.

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#180 - 2013-01-31 12:01:46 UTC
Captain Death1 wrote:
funny how null needs so much help yet most of the botters in game are from null


Sreegs has confirmed that the region with the highest density of bots is... The Forge.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016