EVE General Discussion

Already did the math. It really isn't fear mongering. Hell, I was considering a 50% buff to null sec in anything as WAY WAY too much, and yet to see it'd make little to no difference in profits if imported into high sec... that's a pretty extreme bar.

You should read further. Inflation is caused by an increase in the supply of money (i.e. ISK faucets) which devalue that money. An increase in manufacturing costs that is passed on to the consumer does not automatically signify inflation since the purchasing power of the money has remained the same.

Shifting production, more slots, more offices, better POS is one thing. Rendering hi-sec obsolete is another thing. Also, shifting production from very many players to a few powerful players cuts out a large amount of the player base from industry. That's not good for the game.


The minerals are free crowd get wiped out first thing on the market. The bigger the mistake, the larger the loss. They don't produce the bulk of stuff. If they did they would be broke.



It all depends on the size of the nerf and what happens with slots. A too big nerf to hi-sec with lots of added slots for null and maybe adding newly competitive POS slots to the mix could allow people in null to out-compete hi-sec. If the nerf is too small, people will continue to build in hi-sec because null isn't worth their time. To get things perfect would be a real trick.



Hi-sec isn't risk free, people lose money all the time if they aren't careful.

Null could get more slots in stations, more offices, more research and invention slots and a revamped POS system where it would be viable to build from. That would create a baseline of production capacity that could be really big. Null stuff already sells for more than Jita price locally in most places I have seen, so building for the local market already means higher profit margins.

Getting 5% is a fair profit, and you might get 10% or even more depending on what your alliance allows (so people don't get ripped off). There is no need to nerf hi-sec to achieve larger profit margins. The margins are already there. Its much more difficult to build in null, but nerfing hi-sec won't change that. You will still be using JF to move stuff and it will be a pain even assuming a huge hi-sec nerf.

Making null better than Jita is unlikely because if you made null better than Jita, people would export back to Jita and the price won't really budge, it would still be the lowest price market. Asking for vastly more isk won't get you anywhere since the price is set by people with equal advantages and drawbacks. Asking for a larger volume than Jita isn't possible in null. Even the largest alliance doesn't compare to this single market, which supplies not only null, but hi-sec as well which is huge in its own right. People often haul from Jita to regional hubs too, supplying them. Jita is huge. If you expect to make many billions of isk off your alliance, you might not get that because you aren't big enough. Nerfing hi-sec won't change that much. You will probably make more money, assuming a huge hi-sec nerf, and huge null buff, exporting to Jita than you will supplying your own alliance. That's not farms and fields, that's supplanting hi-sec. If that's what you want I don't think you should get it.

Tasks like invention could easily be done in null POS and stations. With improved copy and invention slots null could crank out a large number of module and hull BPC and use them in invention. Since that price is set by your alliance, it could be set much lower than empire POS can do. Any serious inventor in Hi-sec has their own POS to make copies and often invent there. People do use NPC slots, but they are usually clogged with a huge backlog. You can already do things competitively in null with invention. You also have the added ability in null to get materials from reactions without having to go to Jita, but that requires you communicate with people doing reactions and secure a steady supply from them. That might even give you a slight edge which makes up for some of the other difficulties. A hi-sec nerf won't stop people from sending their reaction products to Jita though. It makes one stop shopping very easy, cheap and convenient.

Refine rates and mineral importation are more thorny issues. Farms and fields proponents say mineral independence. But for 10 years its been interdependence, with null, lowsec and hisec minerals all being imported and exported to each other. Mineral independence would be a big philosophical change. I think the current mineral scheme should remain. Null could use 100% refine though. I don't see a problem with that. Then it would be up to individual alliances to tax it or not as they see fit. Nerfing hi-sec refine rates to stop people from importing to hi-sec, so that null stations can charge a fee and be competitive, seems like an onerous thing to do.

We can talk in circles about this all day long. I think I have a legitimate point to be made though. I trust that CCP will look at all of this on all sides and decide what to do. I do think expecting a massive nerf to hi-sec and a massive buff to null goes against recent history of CCP though. They have been doing modest, incremental changes to fix things they think need fixing. They have been burned with WIS and aurum debacle so they are being cautious. Radical change isn't likely to happen. It might be more productive to outline an overall plan of action and indicate modest yet important changes one after the other.

crap i've been caught out linking a wikipedia article after only reading the first sentence

quick, google something, maybe it'll save me

Newsflash: This is already the case.

You seem to be under the impression that large nullsec alliances haven't taken over manufacturing and industry, but they have. They do it in highsec because it's the best place to do it.

If you don't see why this is a problem I don't think I could convince you that the sky is blue, either.

You are very easily frustrated and quick with the ad hominems.

A general production increase causes a general increase in all manufactured goods. As what part of mining prices takes into account is the cost of operations, which increases with the finished goods prices increasing, its not unreasonable to expect mineral prices to increase.



Who wouldn't get frustrated at people who are trying to say "hey, this article says this" in a discussion when nowhere is it stated as such. In every single article on inflation, it may mention increase in cash supply as A cause, but I challenge you to find one where it says its the only cause. Its similar to how high gas prices increase the price of everything else. If you increase the price of something that something else relies on in some way, chances are everything else increases with it due to the increased cost involved

Hi-sec isn't nirvana. If you were asking for a program of modest but measurable changes, implemented one after the other, to gauge success before going too far, people might not be so defensive when confronted by your ideas. Odds are they wouldn't even care if that was the case. Your contempt for hi-sec people doesn't inspire much in the way of comity either.

But who am I to tell you to stop trolling? I guess I'm a hypocrite.

Eventually it becomes stable, but runaway inflation does sometimes happen for brief times. I find it more likely the other possibility will happen where mineral prices drop like a rock which probably eventually greatly reduce the number of miners in all areas until a certain point, but also cause problems with supply. Then to take into account of the relation to null sec... lets see...

say average of jump freighter is 310k m3 just to throw a number out there.. 16 million fuel costs...

A null sec guy has to make 51 ISK per a m3 to cover fuel costs... If they have to make 3, 4 trips, that number increases to up to 204 ISK per m3... and for the sake of fairness, lets jump in the deep end and go with that 100 million people want to say with opportunity cost instead...

322 ISK per m3. For up to four trips, that can increase up to 1,288 ISK per m3... with numbers like that, I can definitely see why no one is in a rush to mass produce anything out there.

I mean, something like a Tristan, imported from null sec, assuming that only one trip was needed at the 322 ISK cost would have to cost about 805k more to make it high sec than null sec. Granted, not as much of a blip once you move further up the tech chain. However, the 4 trips were under the T2 assumption, sooo... quick math for an Ishkur... about a 3 million price increase just from transportation costs. Then you gotta take into account the dangers of having production out in null, POS costs.. if I had to guess? It'd approach somewhere close to 6-8 million of a price increase, probably something like 80 million for a Sin.

...hmm... seems more to point to sending T2 out there could be viable, ASSUMING I'm not mission any vital costs. Encouraging T1 out there to transport into high sec would be disasterous for new players though, that is something I have little to no doubt about looking at the Tristan number. 1.6 million for a Tristan is not a number I think anyone wants to see other than the already wealthy. It becomes less absurd as you go up the board, but still, not overall insignificant. Though I'm probably missing a shitload of numbers with T2 production... from blueprints being endangered to a large reduction of T2-salvage and product from it being in danger more often. It could be reduced further through various methods. Is T2 production allowed in NPC station manufacturing plants?

You seem to be under the impression that I'm advocating this because I want highsec industrialists to move to null.
I'm advocating it because I want nullsec industrialists to move to null, and I want all of the infrastructure in null to be made better than highsec but also riskier (by having the potential to be destroyed or conquered).

Simply making POS refinement equivalent to highsec won't work, and neither will making production work faster, because these don't add enough incentive to make up for the significantly increased risks and costs of operation in nullsec.