EVE General Discussion

…at which point we're back to the simple cost/benfit analysis that sends everyone back to highsec due to the free/infinite slots available there, which no amount of slots or time bonuses can beat, as shown.

…a resource that can be measured in ISK and be found to not be worth your time (pun intended) because you yield the same benefit by going for the free/infinite alternative, which comes with a whole slew of additional benefits. The only way for that resource reduction to beat free/infinite is to make it so big that it breaks the game.

…or they could just trivially (as in: through one SQL query affecting a single DB entry) make things balanced across all sectors of space for stations, and then we can deal with POSes as a separate problem (which might not even be a problem at that point), for the simple reason that station imbalances can't (and shouldn't) be solved through POSes since they are fundamentally and intentionally different in a number of crucial ways. Balancing stations means much greater — and qualitatively better — results without having to alter and in detail balance every piece of kit that is being deployed in space.

So again: what's so bad about having it balanced the same across all sectors of space? Why do you so hate the idea of having everyone on equal footing?

In other words, they're not compensated for, which means they are exactly the same as before, which means that we have the exact same situation as now, which means that it's still not worth-while to produce in null.

Good. So the costs should be the same for everyone, then, and null should have the ability to yield higher output commensurate with higher risks, trickier logistics, and worse ease of use… right?

Your adjustments don't alter the simple fact that it's a matter of cost vs. benefit and as long as you're just adjusting the number of slots — directly or indirectly — that cost/benefit ratio does not change because you are not altering either of the factors involved. Thus, we have arrive at the same result we currently have — one that makes it far better to just add alts and have everyone sit in highsec due to the unbeatable combination of no cost and infinite availability.

You are skipping three quarters of the problem and hoping that the last quarter will be able to make up for it all, when the entire problem is rather the opposite: it's those parts you insist on skipping that totally wipe out any margin that could potentially make any slots in null worth-while, so altering those slots achieves nothing because they're still worthless compared to the alternative.

…except that they're not part of the balance because they are fundamentally different from how stations work. Unless they were turned into infinite-sized, permanent, dockable structures (read: outposts), they do not provide the same functionality and if they did, we'd be still only be talking about station balance because now POSes are stations too.

Balancing POSes needs to be done, but they are subject to such a vast array of different restrictions and uses that they need to be handled separately form the permanent backbone that stations provide.

The potential for additional profit is accounting for the risks in itself, but you don't make it guaranteed or it isn't a risk at all. Pretty much the risk IS what is accounted for. How much additional profit you can get is based off those risks. That's why there's a need for adjustment at all. As for the rest, I gave you potential benefits, you just choose to ignore them. If the potential for higher profits doesn't bring more industry out into the area, nothing short of obliterating high sec industry would change anything because ultimately, buff or nerf, that's what ends up changing, its just how it ends up changing.



If you're make 3 hurricanes to their 2, that's pretty significant whether you like it or not. Its not just the cost per a slot. A lot less micromanaging involved for the same result, and less startup cost. If I'm completing 15 jobs to your 10, I'm getting a lot more than that 200k out of it. Profit is profit. Your cost per item may be close or the same, but getting yours out faster means your getting more product sold. You can't ignore that as that's still part of your profit. Gotta add in that additional hurricane's profits to your number.

No, it doesn't because all you're doing is more of the same. You scale up both the dividend and the divisor and you end up with the same ratio — a ratio that is not enough to make it worth-while. None of the risk is accounted for. It's all the same as it always were, and it means everyone is better off in highsec.

How does having everyone on equal footing obliterate highsec industry, again?

…except, of course, that the micromanaging and startup cost increases linearly with the production size, so 3 hurricanes instead of 2 means more micromanagement and higher startup costs.

Actually, it means getting the same amount sold, but at a lower price…

If you want to make more per account than someone else, you gotta accept additional risk. If you want to make more than someone with 2, 3, 4, 10 accounts with your one account, you're out of your flipping mind as that's not a reasonable expectation.

If you're selling 3 products for someone's 2, you're going to be making 50% more than them. That isn't a question.

If you make say 300k profit per a drake

Person who sold 2 : 600k
Person who sold 3: 900k
Difference of: 50%

That's more money in your pocket, regardless of anything else. Maybe you have to make more shipments, sure, but that cost isn't changing. Hell, add in the fact that you could be getting more minerals out of null sec if that change went through, and overall, a well protected mineral run would be cheaper than a high sec one. You get the same margins per item, but you're getting more items sold, thus more money. How is that not the only thing that matters? Spell it out, assume equal number of accounts because that's where the balance is going to lie. On an account by account basis, not because someone decides to run 10, 20, or even 100 accounts.

One time costs don't stop profit, they just delay them. Its called investment. The upkeep can be an issue, and it does seem to be maintained by transporting null sec goods into high sec, but that's also a lot of the current null sec costs, is it not? If it was encouraged to keep a lot of those materials in null sec, that's a cost reduction. If you can get more minerals out of null sec through super astroids in itself, and then only get the full potential of minerals out of them in null sec, that reduces the cost of operation and transportation, if they keep it protected. Now if factory POSs and stations turned out to be too expensive compared that what could be reasonably made, that's a sign to look at their prices. Beyond that, isn't null sec supposed to be the place where you could either make it big or lose everything?

…except that they're not one-time costs. They're costs incurred on every run. They are the running costs, and no, they do not apply to highsec — that's the problem.

Let's correct your example for what actually goes on.
This would be true if the costs were the same for highsec. But they're not. That's the whole point: without nerfs to equalise those costs, what you're actually seeing is…

If he makes, say, 300k profit per drake you make a 50k loss.

Person who sold 2: 600k because he produced for free.
Person who sold 3: -150k because he produced at a cost.
Difference: -500%.

As I showed using HS POSes, the lower bound on the cost of Inconvenience and Expense is ~35k ISK/Slot/Hr.
Add in transportation costs (which varies depending on locale, but are around 100m/JF trip [opportunity cost ~= free market cost of a nullsec JF trip, as you could otherwise be doing the JF trip for someone else for 100m.]), and a Risk adjustment and you are way past the 74k ISK/hr/slot normal profit that your suggestion started us off with.

That's called Negative Economic Profit (regardless of your Normal Profit)(assuming HS industry has 0 Economic profit; which, with its low barrier to entry and highly competitive market is very likely), and the rational reaction to a venture displaying Negative Economic Profit is to stop doing it and do something else.


Your problem is that you don't seem to understand the difference between Economic and Normal Profit.

You are, yet again, confusing Normal Profit for Economic Profit as well as demonstrating a profound lack of understanding of the concept of "Opportunity Cost."

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2665816#post2665816
for the 35k ISK/slot/hr minimum cost for inconvenience + expense.
100m is BFF's rate for Nullsec Jumps.
That's where I got those.

Things you need to read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(economics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

What the…?!
No. Costs do not go away just because you make a profit at the end. They are still costs. They still affect your bottom line.

Jump freighters are still a cost that you as a nullsec producer incur that do not exist for the higheccer, and which means that you cannot say that your per-unit profit is the same as his.

It only comes out as more if you ignore the costs like you just did, which is why your idea that this whole thing can be done on buffs alone is hideously uninformed.

Yes you are. You're losing the opportunity to build the exact same thing without incurring the 100M transportation cost.