These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Fix Null > Nerf Hi

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Zarcan
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#601 - 2013-02-28 08:20:20 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Zarcan wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Yonis Kador wrote:
The value of Zydrine is already 150x the value of Tritanium. It won't work.

YK


But Crokite isn't 150x the value per m^3 of Veldspar.

So answer the question: would you go to 0.0 if Zydrine was 1 billion ISK per unit?


You're equating a relatively easy mineral to aquire with a quantity of money that everyone aspires to. You cannot compare these two.

The only way that zydrine would be 1bil isk per unit is if it's demand was sky high and supply was practically non-existant; which won't happen, therefore, your point doesn't have much relevance to anything at all.

People can make a lot of money in nullsec doing exploration; not 1bil per unit, but in the hundreds of millions for a good rader/mag, so your question is somewhat answerable already: I will only go into nullsec and risk losing my ship if I have enough money in reserve to feel comfortable losing a ship, which is logically why Highsec has to offer a decent amount of money in the first place.


It's not about the realistic likelihood for Zydrine being that price, it's about the OP making absolute statements. I want to know if he really believes what he says or if he's just thinking in terms of "everyone knows" cliches that he hasn't really thought about.


Fair enough. It sure seems like CCP won't change highsec profitability soon, so I'm not really that concerned.

Not many people have brought up moon goo, to be honest.
Dave stark
#602 - 2013-02-28 08:39:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Yonis Kador wrote:
Oh. Well, would adding that obtaining Zydrine only requires ONE jump into low sec make it any less so?

YK

no, because you're still comparing zydrine to tritanium, which is ridiculous.


Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
The answer to both these problems is the introduction of superveld

no it isn't, the answer is the change in mineral composition of spod and gneiss


Zarcan wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
merxocit and arkonor are still the most valuable ores per m3 btw


Sure, wasn't a figure like 23% more profitable given earlier? Still not enough to make people like me reconsider the potential losses. Due to the fact that someone can fill a JF with ark and get it on the market in Jita and be more comfortable logistically than me and my little retriever with my friend.

Not that that's a problem necessarily, but that's how the free market is. I could go down to the river and mine for gold right now but chances are the big digger downstream has it all


at the time of writing this, the most valuable non-high sec ore is only ~22.6% (i've just woken up, so i was using rounded values to the nearest 2SF) more valuable than the highest high sec ore (scordite vs hedbergite)
however, you can't just cherry pick hedbergite in nullsec all day in the same way you can scordite in high sec. generally you have to flip whole grav sites, which means not mining that 7m+ isk/can hedbergite and mining that 2m isk/can spod.
that will eat in to the already small benefits of access to ores like hedbergite, arkonor, hemorphite, jaspet etc.

in addition to this, you then have the issue that most of these ores contain high end minerals, not low end minerals, and thus can't be sold locally (or, at least not for jita prices) so you have to then factor in the logistics of moving them to jita, and by the time all is said and done you'll probably be making more isk/hour in high sec mining scordite.

i don't make a secret of what i do in game, and now is no exception. i mine in high sec under the protection of the npc corp for the above reasons, and the fact that npc corps are there for the seemingly sole purpose of being absued in such a way.
would i like to be in a player corp? yes. would i like to be in null sec again? yeah, i think i would. would it be sensible to join a player corp and go to nullsec? absolutely not.
Dave stark
#603 - 2013-02-28 08:39:27 UTC
****, wrong button.
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#604 - 2013-02-28 08:56:38 UTC
Oh are you guys still going on about the zydrine. Whatever. I'm well-aware (just in case you haven't been reading my posts) that the profit margin between two minerals cannot be calculated without yield/cycle/value of the ore it came from. I mine a lot. I hope I don't come across as that ignorant. It's pretty amazing that my off-the-cuff comment (that was only meant to illustrate the nearness and availability of increased profit) gets dragged through the streets but here we go again with billion isk zydrine and THAT somehow makes perfect sense.

To answer your question, Mal, I already plan to make my way to null and it'll have nothing to do with value of zydrine. For me, it's much more about manifest destiny. One of my characters can pilot drednoughts and carriers now. But I'll either pave my own road there, on my own terms, or die trying. I realize that I could pack up everything today and join an established corp but that's not the game I'm playing. And a year from now, my goals may change again. Who knows? Even if most are doomed to failure, I'm sure other players are also attempting to realize their own dreams in New Eden.

And I'm sure some ppl think I'm crazy for suggesting that its security keeping a lot of players in high sec, but I think its equally nuts to see dozens of new topics spawned in GD about fixing null that don't even mention security as a factor. It's all nerf this/ buff that. People invest years of their lives in this game and they consider the things they own investments. Investments need protection. Nerfing high sec income will only exacerbate that situation. When you consider that zydrine (Shocked) is readily available to be mined but a single jump into low sec using inexpensive t1 barges (and now frigates,) and yet is still overwhelmingly purchased at inflated costs instead, risk is an issue.

My personal opinion is that you can fill null with superores and manufacturing slots until you drop and a great many players will still reside in high sec - because of the sec. When it's suggested that high sec goods are too easily obtained for null industry to take root, my first instinct would be to nerf jump freighters - not all of high sec. Lol

I read a lot of these topics even though I comment infrequently. One thing I've always wondered is if anyone has bothered to consider whether industry of a fraction of the playerbase CAN be balanced against the industrial might of the majority. How much subsidizing (superores) will that require? Or has it been considered that null was never meant to have everything it needs? That no sec was meant to have everything it needs? And while I hate to rain on anyone's dystopian parade, has it also been considered that a significant number of players may actually have no interest in EVER going to null? (Null-averse? lol)

Or is it automatically assumed that all players want the same things and with just a little more profit in null it'll be rainbows and ponies for all?

YK
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#605 - 2013-02-28 08:56:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Natsett Amuinn
The underlying problem is the ability to quickly, easily, and cheaply move goods from one region of eve to another. Since JF service is necessary in order for a corp to get going in null, it can't be screwed with.

In the real world you maintain the value of goods through taxes, import/ export laws.

As an example: if you run a sporting goods store and you sell baseball socks from one vendor who produces in china, you can only import a set amount from that vendor within a given time. Yes indeed, there are laws that actually limit how many pairs of socks you can import at any given time in the US.


You can already build for cheaper and faster in null sec with the way lines work and can be set up. You can't buff that.

Unless CCP can devise a way to tax goods moved from one end of eve to the other, then they need to increase what it cots to build T2 goods in high sec by either reducing the amount that can be made through limiting the slots available for T2 production, or they need to increase the base cost to build T2 goods through increased line costs.

Jita breaks null industry, period. It creates an imbalance that makes it pointless for people like me to play EVE.
That is more important to fix then to keep for any one of the ridiculous arguments I see used.

It's a ******* game.
And I shouldn't be forced to play in high sec if I want to be an industrialist that can sell the things he makes at a fair price. I TAKE A LOSS ON ALMOST EVERYTHING I BUILD, because I can make more reselling the minerals I use. That's not dramatic exaggeration. I do my math everyday like any good industrialist should.


Edit: never again will I eat roasted red peppers. 4am and I'm up posting on the eve forums. Ridiculous.
Dave stark
#606 - 2013-02-28 09:01:30 UTC
Yonis Kador wrote:
It's pretty amazing that my off-the-cuff comment (that was only meant to illustrate the nearness and availability of increased profit) gets dragged through the streets but here we go again with billion isk zydrine and THAT somehow makes perfect sense.


because it didn't illustrate the nearness and availability of increased profit, at all.
and one billion isk zydrine was obvious sarcasm.
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#607 - 2013-02-28 09:04:43 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
You can already build for cheaper and faster in null sec with the way lines work and can be set up. You can't buff that.


You're the only one I've seen that says this. Almost everyone else its been the opposite. In fact, beyond the jump freighter costs, most have been saying to balance out the costs between null and high sec where production costs the same or is cheaper in null sec to encourage producing in null sec rather than exporting from high sec. Couple want to take it further and make it where its viable to import from deep null sec into high sec, so now I find myself a little confused.
Dave stark
#608 - 2013-02-28 09:06:53 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
You can already build for cheaper and faster in null sec with the way lines work and can be set up. You can't buff that.


You're the only one I've seen that says this. Almost everyone else its been the opposite. In fact, beyond the jump freighter costs, most have been saying to balance out the costs between null and high sec where production costs the same or is cheaper in null sec to encourage producing in null sec rather than exporting from high sec. Couple want to take it further and make it where its viable to import from deep null sec into high sec, so now I find myself a little confused.


perhaps the industry and economy section of this article can help?
Lin Suizei
#609 - 2013-02-28 09:25:29 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
You're the only one I've seen that says this. Almost everyone else its been the opposite. In fact, beyond the jump freighter costs, most have been saying to balance out the costs between null and high sec where production costs the same or is cheaper in null sec to encourage producing in null sec rather than exporting from high sec. Couple want to take it further and make it where its viable to import from deep null sec into high sec, so now I find myself a little confused.


Why not live outside of highsec for 3 months (and no lowsec border systems where you can just jump the gate back to highsec), and try to set up an industrial operation? You'll quickly realize what quality-of-life issues and costs people are talking about.

Lol I can't delete my forum sig.
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#610 - 2013-02-28 09:27:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Aren Madigan
Dave Stark wrote:

perhaps the industry and economy section of this article can help?

Not particularly... just states things that were already well explained, not where null sec is cheaper and faster.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#611 - 2013-02-28 09:37:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Natsett Amuinn
Aren Madigan wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
You can already build for cheaper and faster in null sec with the way lines work and can be set up. You can't buff that.


You're the only one I've seen that says this. Almost everyone else its been the opposite. In fact, beyond the jump freighter costs, most have been saying to balance out the costs between null and high sec where production costs the same or is cheaper in null sec to encourage producing in null sec rather than exporting from high sec. Couple want to take it further and make it where its viable to import from deep null sec into high sec, so now I find myself a little confused.

That's not what they're saying. They're saying to increase the capacity.

If I'm using 11 lines that means I'm using almost half of the available lines that are worth building in. We want our capacity to actually match player population for today, not 2003.

Line costs are only worse for those people that can't get the lines you would build in. If there are no 0/0 lines, or 1000/500 lines you don't build to sell.

Would you build off a 5000/ 2500 line? How about a 20000/ 7500 line?

The capacity to build affordable is to low, that doesn't mean it's not affordable for everyone; only that is only affordable to a very small handful of us. If I couldn't set up my jobs in the morning I wouldn't be building anything in null. It's the same reason only a few people can do ME research in null. The lines all get occupied and you've got to wait a month before you can start your own. You're better off putting a PoS up in high sec to do research and then build from an NPC station.


Industry as a whole needs improvements, not just null industry. A series of buffs AND nerfs is the only way to fix it as a whole.
They don't just buff underpowered ships when they rebalance. They nerf the overpowered stuff as well as buff the underpowered.

CCP does a food job of instituting measured changes, nerfs are rarely that severe; nor do they have to be.

Just because I say nerf, that doesn't mean destroy. Importing and exporting should happen, but not at the expense of an entire play style like it does now.

Again, ensuring that a play style is viable is the most important consideration. I build stuff in null because I want to, that doesn't mean it's not pointless though. It only means I haven't said **** it and quit yet.

It needs to be fixed and no buff to null is going to fix it, just allow more people to experience what I do, get frustrated, and either go back to high sec or quit the game.
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#612 - 2013-02-28 09:46:11 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

That's not what they're saying. They're saying to increase the capacity.

If I'm using 11 lines that means I'm using almost half of the available lines that are worth building in. We want our capacity to actually match player population for today, not 2003.


People are saying a bunch of different things... I'm really getting tired of this. "That's not what they're saying". That's what I was told about the jump freighter importing thing and then lo and behold, Ruby reappears to discuss that further. Just from that I have no energy to discuss any further tonight so I'll read the rest later. You need to keep in mind though that there' s a lot of people and a lot of viewpoints going around, so that kind of thing REALLY makes the brain hurt, because just because you didn't see it said, doesn't mean it wasn't said by someone or even several people... though capacity was part of what a lot of people were saying too, yes.
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#613 - 2013-02-28 11:05:25 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Hi-sec is supposed to be the starter area....

I think it's ridiculous to constrain hi-sec under that long outdated assumption, but it's just as ridiculous to constrain 0.0 with the equally outdated "wild west" concept.


Oh, I absolutely agree, I'd hate to see high sec die like starter zones die in other mmos. I'm just saying that making everything better in null will end up badly for high (and low/WH caught in between the struggle). Imo, nerfing one part of the game across the board or making progress linear is not necessarily a solution to the problems. Perhaps the "wild west" concept was a bit silly, given that it's usually related in our minds to western genre - what I was thinking of is more the borderlands of civilization, where accepted rules are thrown to the wind as society struggles to create fortune for itself. The "wild west" in this example means lack of government (empires), where people are left to organize themselves as they see fit. Some will steal, others will organize militias, the third will create societies of their own.

To get back to the game's null, imo one of the key problems of null nowadays is how sov functions and what happens if a small group comes in to have a shot at risk/reward. Have you lately seen a small alliance park themselves into a random system and try to claim it? All hell breaks lose, until the new guy is either forced to bend over to one of the larger "protectors" or to get the hell out. So how is a small industrialist supposed to compete if high sec is made worthless compared to null? In my opinion, you first need to allow the small guy to survive in null, then you can talk about moving things there.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#614 - 2013-02-28 11:17:38 UTC
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Hi-sec is supposed to be the starter area....

I think it's ridiculous to constrain hi-sec under that long outdated assumption, but it's just as ridiculous to constrain 0.0 with the equally outdated "wild west" concept.


Oh, I absolutely agree, I'd hate to see high sec die like starter zones die in other mmos. I'm just saying that making everything better in null will end up badly for high (and low/WH caught in between the struggle)...


I flatly disagree. When you have ~60-70% of the game population crammed into a zone that's only ~15% of the game area, then there's a prima facia case for rebalancing right there. More specifically, when 95% of productive activity takes place in hi-sec, then it's even more obvious that there's a straight up imbalance. The situation we have now is that making hi-sec too good has ended up badly for 0.0, and that imbalance needs to be addressed.

I don't want to see hi-sec cored out. I want to see hi-sec populated by people who like being in hi-sec, not people who are 'forced' to operate there because it's uneconomic for them to operate elsewhere. Equally, I don't want to see people 'forced' to operate in 0.0 because it's not economic to operate anywhere else. Unless a profession is intrinsically tied to a sec zone (eg: wardecs are by definition a hi-sec profession), then that profession should be viable in as many parts of the map as possible.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#615 - 2013-02-28 11:22:44 UTC
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
[quote=Malcanis]

To get back to the game's null, imo one of the key problems of null nowadays is how sov functions and what happens if a small group comes in to have a shot at risk/reward. Have you lately seen a small alliance park themselves into a random system and try to claim it? All hell breaks lose, until the new guy is either forced to bend over to one of the larger "protectors" or to get the hell out. So how is a small industrialist supposed to compete if high sec is made worthless compared to null? In my opinion, you first need to allow the small guy to survive in null, then you can talk about moving things there.


To answer your question: the small alliance survives in null by engaging in player politics, and building relationships with the groups already there. Every single large group in 0.0 is desperately looking for new alliances that aren't completely terrible to occupy the space they control. Your hypothetical new alliance can get space from either the CFC or the HBC pretty much by asking for some.

A small industrialist can also join an existing alliance. The meme that 0.0 players "hate" industrialists is simply untrue. What 0.0 players hate are parasites who expect to be able to use alliance resources and give nothing back (ie: people who think they can treat player alliances like NPC entities).

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Daniel Whateley
#616 - 2013-02-28 11:33:29 UTC
I got an idea... harder ded's that require carrier and dread support ? :).... Failing all that, make DED's more frequent in nullsec again, i used to find 4-5 in the same system a day (none dropped anything ofc cause im unlucky) but now its like "your lucky to find 1 ded in the whole constellation..."
Daniel Whateley
#617 - 2013-02-28 11:35:00 UTC
oh and on a side note, nullsec doesn't need anymore CHANGES tyvm, leave it like it is... apart from bring my ded's back
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#618 - 2013-02-28 11:40:27 UTC
Yonis Kador wrote:
...And I'm sure some ppl think I'm crazy for suggesting that its security keeping a lot of players in high sec, but I think its equally nuts to see dozens of new topics spawned in GD about fixing null that don't even mention security as a factor. It's all nerf this/ buff that...

YK

Careful... you are going to scare the 'Womanfolk'.

Your speaking of change... that scares "The Entitled". Blink
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#619 - 2013-02-28 12:48:21 UTC
Daniel Whateley wrote:
I got an idea... harder ded's that require carrier and dread support ? :).... Failing all that, make DED's more frequent in nullsec again, i used to find 4-5 in the same system a day (none dropped anything ofc cause im unlucky) but now its like "your lucky to find 1 ded in the whole constellation..."


That's because news spreads fast and more people are aware of them.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#620 - 2013-02-28 13:37:11 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
To answer your question: the small alliance survives in null by engaging in player politics, and building relationships with the groups already there. Every single large group in 0.0 is desperately looking for new alliances that aren't completely terrible to occupy the space they control. Your hypothetical new alliance can get space from either the CFC or the HBC pretty much by asking for some.


In other words, taking it from behind by the big guys. See, this is something I have a problem with, the massive blue landscapes of null. Null was supposed to be about competition, not the Illustrious benefactor / godfather / overlord. :)