These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#841 - 2013-03-04 20:07:31 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
You should do some research as well, those POS manufacturing slots that are dedicated to titans could be as many as 60 module manufacturing slots. Each.

The amount of manufacturing capacity tied up in making supercaps is a lot more than most people understand it to be
…and still doesn't compete with the production of other goods or use up capacity that could be put to use elsewhere. Because if it did, the production it would put a stop to would be the on going on in highsec.

Quote:
Nonsensical strawmen like sharply reducing the quantity of NPC manufacturing slots
Ok, look. I'm going to stop you there. If you're going to use a term, learn what it means first. No, that is not a strawman.

Quote:
That's trying to fix a perceived problem in nullsec manufacturing due to it having different qualities by changing the quantity of manufacturing slots in nullsec or highsec.

The problem isn't at all that there is too much highsec manufacturing, or that there is too little nullsec manufacturing
Actually, that's exactly what the problem is. The qualitative differences you're talking about are handled by separate mechanics, which leaves the actual problem with stations the same — and it is indeed a problem. You see, the whole notion that some regions are for some specific production is bunk. Null is supposed to have the same production capabilities as all other parts of space, plus some null-specific stuff on the side. The on-the-side stuff is handled by on-the-side mechanics.

We're talking about the parts where null industry is comparable to high/low industry… except that it isn't for the enumerated reasons, and how any fix to this imbalance will require a nerf to high in order to provide a margin that allows something else to be “better”.

Quote:
If you want to be doing industry in a part of the game that has an exclusive on a particular industrial process, and you don't want to be involved in that particular process, you are doing it wrong.
No. You really aren't. Just because a process is exclusively available in a particular part of space doesn't mean that that particular part of space is exclusively meant for that process.

So if you don't want to take part in that process, you're supposed to be able to do something else. For instance, null is supposed to have a massive all-encompassing industrial capacity, but it doesn't, and even if it did, it would be worthless since the same capacity could be had cheaper and with less fuss elsewhere.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#842 - 2013-03-04 20:28:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Stray Bullets wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Stray Bullets wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
For industry, highsec has more risk than nullsec since industry is based on creating, moving, and selling.

Not hostility brought on by combat. "Risk vs Reward" isn't only based on combat. But elemental risk in that field.


Yes, you are right. Currently empire industry does have more risk than nullsec industry, but not in the way you think. Empire industry has more risk because, besides capital ships, there is no nullsec industry! So comparing the very low risk of empire with the non existent risk (due to the activity itself not existing) of nullsec, you are absolutely right. Big smile


Anyway, I did not support a removal of empire slots but a reduction in number or taxing the existing ones, combined with making it harder to haul everything to and from empire space.

Basically, there's no way to solve this problem by simply buffing nullsec. There's no way nullsec can compete in risk, so no matter what buffs you put out, empire will always present itself as the most attractive option. You need to phase industry to the players (POSs) and sideline the NPC production. No other way around this.

Example:

Player A - Lives in SOV Null
Player B - Lives in Empire space

Player A has to deal with limited slots, limited available outposts, defending the space that holds the outposts, defend the supply lines for raw materials (either hauled in or gathered locally)
Player B has more than twice the slots, I'd say at least a couple of thousand more stations and does NOT have to defend any part of his production line, with the exception of the occasional suicide ganker.

Why in the **** would I choose to be player A? It involves a lot more work for the same potential profit as hauling built stuff from empire! It's simply broken. Player A has to risk everything he has while player B risks jack and **** :)



My point being that when people say industry needs to be increased in null based on "risk vs reward", they are using that term incorrectly. Combat risk has nothing to do with industrial reward in the same regards as if it were talking about say... ratting. Or anomalies.

What "risk" is there in using stations with worse refine %s? By your account, null is in fact less riskier since there shouldn't be any problems creating anything at all!

For an industrialist your reward comes from the market right?



What risk? The risk of your system being taken by someone else. The risk of someone dropping a couple dozen supers on your POS and shitting all over your day! :) The risk of your logistic convoy hauling in some (and I do mean some) of the raw materials being ... errr... blow to hell? :)

That may come as a surprise, but nullsec has risk involved just by having to live there. You logout out for a couple of days, come back and your system is ... no longer yours and you got all your **** stuck in there! Hurray! Let me know when you get that kind of scenario in empire :)



Yay! You're finally on board of the risk vs reward of sov versus empire... but not how it's exclusive to industry! Let's revisit the America and Congo argument again. Because none of that is justifiable as to why industry should be better, or hell, even balanced compared to empire space.

You did however argue one of cons versus pros of living in sov to begin with.

Let's take it a further step...

With the imminent danger of having that station being taken away, and how volatile and risky that space is.... clearly there's plenty of "time" to research (going with roleplay here) to have the finer technology to acquire a perfect refine. I mean hell, civilized highsec has it right?!

Next you're going to say we should have the ability to fly and build supercaps in highsec again!

Again, it has to make sense. WHY should null have equal or better facilities? Sorry but it just sounds weird.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#843 - 2013-03-04 20:29:16 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
You should do some research as well, those POS manufacturing slots that are dedicated to titans could be as many as 60 module manufacturing slots. Each.

The amount of manufacturing capacity tied up in making supercaps is a lot more than most people understand it to be
…and still doesn't compete with the production of other goods or use up capacity that could be put to use elsewhere. Because if it did, the production it would put a stop to would be the on going on in highsec.


Why would it?

Highsec is its own market, with orders of magnitude more customers than nullsec has. The nullsec consumers of highsec products are a small fraction of the total market.

The things that can be produced only in nullsec also are largely consumed in nullsec (with some lowsec customers).

The claim of an imbalance between nullsec and highsec industry is poorly supported, to be perfectly honest, there is just the small matter of highsec being underpopulated right now so there is still excess capacity in the system.

As long as EvE keeps growing that surplus will get used up.

It sounds like what you and Malcanis really want is the POS update, so that player owned manufacturing can be extended. You should consider advocating for that since CCP has stated repeatedly that it is a direction they would like to go.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
samualvimes
Brothers At Arms
#844 - 2013-03-04 20:37:42 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
You should do some research as well, those POS manufacturing slots that are dedicated to titans could be as many as 60 module manufacturing slots. Each.

The amount of manufacturing capacity tied up in making supercaps is a lot more than most people understand it to be
…and still doesn't compete with the production of other goods or use up capacity that could be put to use elsewhere. Because if it did, the production it would put a stop to would be the on going on in highsec.


Why would it?

Highsec is its own market, with orders of magnitude more customers than nullsec has. The nullsec consumers of highsec products are a small fraction of the total market.

The things that can be produced only in nullsec also are largely consumed in nullsec (with some lowsec customers).

The claim of an imbalance between nullsec and highsec industry is poorly supported, to be perfectly honest, there is just the small matter of highsec being underpopulated right now so there is still excess capacity in the system.

As long as EvE keeps growing that surplus will get used up.

It sounds like what you and Malcanis really want is the POS update, so that player owned manufacturing can be extended. You should consider advocating for that since CCP has stated repeatedly that it is a direction they would like to go.


Considering as it's been mentioned a number of times in this thread I feel that it should be pointed out that a lot of hi-secs goods are bought by nul-sec and shipped as it's easier and cheaper than attempting to do the industry down there. That's kind of the point. Please back up that the people in nul sec buying that is "orders of magnitude" less than the pure hi-sec people

If you've never tried PvP in EvE it's quite possible you've missed out on one of the greatest rushes available in modern gaming.
Stray Bullets
Perkone
Caldari State
#845 - 2013-03-04 20:38:24 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Again, it has to make sense. WHY should null have equal or better facilities? Sorry but it just sounds weird.


Indeed, you need to make sense. Why should the least risky environment have the best of any part of the game? Why shouldn't nullsec have the best facilities if it has the greater risk? Your logic is completely screwed up Big smile


Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Highsec is its own market, with orders of magnitude more customers than nullsec has. The nullsec consumers of highsec products are a small fraction of the total market.

The things that can be produced only in nullsec also are largely consumed in nullsec (with some lowsec customers).

The claim of an imbalance between nullsec and highsec industry is poorly supported, to be perfectly honest, there is just the small matter of highsec being underpopulated right now so there is still excess capacity in the system.

As long as EvE keeps growing that surplus will get used up.

It sounds like what you and Malcanis really want is the POS update, so that player owned manufacturing can be extended. You should consider advocating for that since CCP has stated repeatedly that it is a direction they would like to go.


I'm actually hoping you are a troll. No one can be this clueless. Highsec has it's own market? You really believe that? :) Are you that naive? :)

Things produced in nullsec are largely consumed in nullsec? Yes, the very small part of whatever you build that's not capital related, is indeed consumed in nullsec. The fact is that whatever you build, you'll always lose versus someone building in a place with all the means and none of the risks.

Highsec being underpopulated? WTF? Lol

Shifting production to POSs is a good thing. Maybe not to you, but for the game, it's positive! :)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#846 - 2013-03-04 20:40:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Why would it?
Because that's where the production happens. If capships somehow but a stop to production, it would be that one… because it's the only one that really exists.

Quote:
Highsec is its own market
No. Highsec is just a market, with a couple of restrictions on what can be traded there. Beyond that, it's just part of the overall economy and, the way the game is currently designed, it's where all the trade happens because of the proximity to production.

Quote:
The claim of an imbalance between nullsec and highsec industry is poorly supported, to be perfectly honest
In what way?

Quote:
It sounds like what you and Malcanis really want is the POS update, so that player owned manufacturing can be extended.
Why would we want a POS update when what we're asking for is a station balance pass (especially when it won't solve the imbalance I'm interested in solving)? Why should I advocate for something I'm not interested in when CCP has stated that such a revamp has to be put on hold and when they have said repeatedly that a industry revamp of the kind I'm talking about is the direction they want to go?
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#847 - 2013-03-04 20:49:14 UTC
Stray Bullets wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Again, it has to make sense. WHY should null have equal or better facilities? Sorry but it just sounds weird.


Indeed, you need to make sense. Why should the least risky environment have the best of any part of the game? Why shouldn't nullsec have the best facilities if it has the greater risk? Your logic is completely screwed up Big smile



Because you answered your own question.... in the world of research and industry, why would the most volatile and rudimentary of services be the best? Why would a backwater town, so to speak, have better facilities than an area that is a well established secured utopia?

I'm sorry but a small town of 2,000 will not have better industry than a cosmopolitan city. It just won't.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Stray Bullets
Perkone
Caldari State
#848 - 2013-03-04 20:51:02 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Stray Bullets wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Again, it has to make sense. WHY should null have equal or better facilities? Sorry but it just sounds weird.


Indeed, you need to make sense. Why should the least risky environment have the best of any part of the game? Why shouldn't nullsec have the best facilities if it has the greater risk? Your logic is completely screwed up Big smile



Because you answered your own question.... in the world of research and industry, why would the most volatile and rudimentary of services be the best? Why would a backwater town, so to speak, have better facilities than an area that is a well established secured utopia?

I'm sorry but a small town of 2,000 will not have better industry than a cosmopolitan city. It just won't.


My bad. I thought we were discussing the lack of risk vs reward regarding nullsec vs highsec. The topic on the thread is obviously missing the part where it's a RP discussion.

I'm very sorry and I'll retire from this discussion Roll
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#849 - 2013-03-04 20:52:24 UTC
Stray Bullets wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Stray Bullets wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Again, it has to make sense. WHY should null have equal or better facilities? Sorry but it just sounds weird.


Indeed, you need to make sense. Why should the least risky environment have the best of any part of the game? Why shouldn't nullsec have the best facilities if it has the greater risk? Your logic is completely screwed up Big smile



Because you answered your own question.... in the world of research and industry, why would the most volatile and rudimentary of services be the best? Why would a backwater town, so to speak, have better facilities than an area that is a well established secured utopia?

I'm sorry but a small town of 2,000 will not have better industry than a cosmopolitan city. It just won't.


My bad. I thought we were discussing the lack of risk vs reward regarding nullsec vs highsec. The topic on the thread is obviously missing the part where it's a RP discussion.

I'm very sorry and I'll retire from this discussion Roll

First you must self-destruct your pod in shame.

I hope your clone lives a more ~honorable ~internet forums life than you have.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#850 - 2013-03-04 20:53:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
I'm sorry but a small town of 2,000 will not have better industry than a cosmopolitan city. It just won't.
Of course it would.

Cosmopolitan cities don't want ugly and polluting concrete behemoths on their doorsteps. They want those far away (if the manufacturer can have his choice, in some unregulated backwater area where he can ignore all environmental and worker concerns).

Why should null have better facilities? Because you pay for them. Because it's part of your personal empire. Because you need to be rewarded for your efforts. Because it's good design and good balance.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#851 - 2013-03-04 20:54:46 UTC
Stray Bullets wrote:

Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
So, 8-10B is casual now?

"Hey guys I buy my Supercarrier every 2-3 months I am casual, trust me!"


Seriously? A char with almost 3 years invested into indy / trade having problems doing a couple of bil a week while playing casually? Like I said before, I play about 10h a week. If that is not casual, then the mistake was mine. If casual is playing 3h a week, then I'd say the rewards will adjust accordingly to, say, 500mil a week. FFS, even with PI alone you can pretty much do this amount if you know what you're doing! :|


So, you find it just normal for a "casual" industrialist to farm his Titan every year.

I suppose by your definition a dedicated industrialist farms his personal Titans fleet every month?


And you find a Rifters manufacturer is "unfairly" competing with you with all of his huge 50k ISK revenue per ship? Come on!

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#852 - 2013-03-04 20:56:00 UTC
Stray Bullets wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Stray Bullets wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Again, it has to make sense. WHY should null have equal or better facilities? Sorry but it just sounds weird.


Indeed, you need to make sense. Why should the least risky environment have the best of any part of the game? Why shouldn't nullsec have the best facilities if it has the greater risk? Your logic is completely screwed up Big smile



Because you answered your own question.... in the world of research and industry, why would the most volatile and rudimentary of services be the best? Why would a backwater town, so to speak, have better facilities than an area that is a well established secured utopia?

I'm sorry but a small town of 2,000 will not have better industry than a cosmopolitan city. It just won't.


My bad. I thought we were discussing the lack of risk vs reward regarding nullsec vs highsec. The topic on the thread is obviously missing the part where it's a RP discussion.

I'm very sorry and I'll retire from this discussion Roll



Ew, so you are trolling. That sucks.

But I'll stay on topic for you... risk versus reward doesn't, or rather, shouldn't, be applied in the same way for the same reasons. That's a blanket kneejerk reaction to self entitlement.

That's saying your steak is better than Black Angus' steak just because you went and got your own ranch and a cow.

Now risk versus reward... for combat? Null is better. By quality. By bounty. Sov or npc null.

But industry? The risk isn't defined by the same rules. Industrially highsec is more dangerous by role than in null.


Which brings us back to full circle.... using some sort of risk versus reward to increase nullsec capabilities for industry is a fallacy.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
samualvimes
Brothers At Arms
#853 - 2013-03-04 21:00:35 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Stray Bullets wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Again, it has to make sense. WHY should null have equal or better facilities? Sorry but it just sounds weird.


Indeed, you need to make sense. Why should the least risky environment have the best of any part of the game? Why shouldn't nullsec have the best facilities if it has the greater risk? Your logic is completely screwed up Big smile



Because you answered your own question.... in the world of research and industry, why would the most volatile and rudimentary of services be the best? Why would a backwater town, so to speak, have better facilities than an area that is a well established secured utopia?

I'm sorry but a small town of 2,000 will not have better industry than a cosmopolitan city. It just won't.



You've never outscourced manufacturing to toll manufacturers before? It's a hell of a lot more expensive than the same costs if the facilities are in house. High sec station = toll manufacturing. Null sec = your own back integrated facilities.

There we go. Now can we return to the topic?

If you've never tried PvP in EvE it's quite possible you've missed out on one of the greatest rushes available in modern gaming.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#854 - 2013-03-04 21:00:37 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
I'm sorry but a small town of 2,000 will not have better industry than a cosmopolitan city. It just won't.
Of course it would.

Cosmopolitan cities don't want ugly and polluting concrete behemoths on their doorsteps. They want those far away (if the manufacturer can have his choice, in some unregulated backwater area where he can ignore all environmental and worker concerns).

Why should null have better facilities? Because you pay for them. Because it's part of your personal empire. Because you need to be rewarded for your efforts. Because it's good design and good balance.




In history when did that ever happen? I mean, you can argue why we have a huge industrial network of trains and planes and and trucks and then you'll find why people don't build in their backyard.

Or we can use the flipside of that coin.... and show you just proved why you don't produce in your same area. Justify why null and empire are seperated and interlinked as opposed to standalone from each other. It goes hand in hand. You can say null is the dirty desert town, or you can say empire is the 'hood of downtown L.A. Both work in that argument. It's perspective.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Stray Bullets
Perkone
Caldari State
#855 - 2013-03-04 21:00:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Stray Bullets
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Stray Bullets wrote:

Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
So, 8-10B is casual now?

"Hey guys I buy my Supercarrier every 2-3 months I am casual, trust me!"


Seriously? A char with almost 3 years invested into indy / trade having problems doing a couple of bil a week while playing casually? Like I said before, I play about 10h a week. If that is not casual, then the mistake was mine. If casual is playing 3h a week, then I'd say the rewards will adjust accordingly to, say, 500mil a week. FFS, even with PI alone you can pretty much do this amount if you know what you're doing! :|


So, you find it just normal for a "casual" industrialist to farm his Titan every year.

I suppose by your definition a dedicated industrialist farms his personal Titans fleet every month?


And you find a Rifters manufacturer is "unfairly" competing with you with all of his huge 50k ISK revenue per ship? Come on!


You're confusing casual gaming with actually having a brain to play with during that time in game. For me, casual/dedicated is basically a matter of how much time you put into to it, so yes, in my perspective, I'm a casual player. There are others who "live" in EVE. Those are "dedicated" and should probably get a life ... but that's a whole new subject! ;)

I'm pretty sure there's guys who make more isk than me, in far less time, probably with far less skills and far less effort and I don't ***** about it being unfair nor do I expect a total noob to be able to compete with me, through normal mechanics, at the same activity, when I invested a couple of years into support skills.

I'm supposed to be more efficient than he is, period.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#856 - 2013-03-04 21:07:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
But industry? The risk isn't defined by the same rules. Industrially highsec is more dangerous by role than in null.
LMAO! LolLolLol
Eh, no. Not even close.

When was the last time someone killed all your S&I jobs, took your production slots, denied you access to all your blueprints and stockpiled materials? In fact, could you provide an example of this supposed higher danger in high?

Oh, and the risks are most certainly defined by the same rules: what are you investing? What are the opportunities and probabilities of that investment coming to naught? The space you're in and the activity you're engaging in does not change how risk is defined.

Quote:
Which brings us back to full circle.... using some sort of risk versus reward to increase nullsec capabilities for industry is a fallacy.
…but you just said that the risks were higher in high, but if risk vs. reward is a fallacy, it means we can safely remove all that reward from high since the “higher risks” (hahahah… sorry, can't say that with a straight face) are not really meant to be rewarded anyway.

Quote:
In history when did that ever happen?
Oh, pretty much from the industrial revolution and onwards. And no, it doesn't change how effort should be rewarded in this game…
Stray Bullets
Perkone
Caldari State
#857 - 2013-03-04 21:07:13 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
But industry? The risk isn't defined by the same rules. Industrially highsec is more dangerous by role than in null.

Which brings us back to full circle.... using some sort of risk versus reward to increase nullsec capabilities for industry is a fallacy.


What I gather from this is that you don't understand the concept of risk vs reward. At no point does empire industry have more risk that nullsec industry!

The concept is simple. The rewards escalate with the risks you take. Right now you're taking no risks :) No one can come up and **** on your part of the sandbox while in nullsec ... well, everyone can ... and will Lol


I've said this plenty of times, but I live in empire! I would gladly go back to nullsec, if it had any kind of point for a industrial player but as it doesn't, I'm mining ice in empire while discussing a nerf to my income on the forums. Awesome eh? :D
Frying Doom
#858 - 2013-03-04 21:15:46 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

No I went on reality, unless you can name me a car company that does not own (or use government facilities) and competes directly with Toyota.


You went on reality, based on points I did not make. I made a case of a small company (small EvE Rifter builder) that even if it made as much margin as a large company (like you) he would still not be able to afford your own scale and thus he's still not able to "beat you".

So I will take that is tony in his back shed can not compete with Toyota within the same market.

And yes if he made rifters and I made jump freighters than yes the amount of my profit would be greater but back on the original point I was saying that if I was using my own manufacturing and he was renting it and we were both building rifters, does it not make sense that I should profit more per unit of rifter?


If he'd renting facilities in a lower wages and costs country than you do, then he'll still out-compete you.

So what you are saying is that facilities in more developed areas (Hi-sec) should cost more than for the other areas of space.

Good to see you agree on that, now I just need to convince you of why owning your own facilities should be more profitable within the same area.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
samualvimes
Brothers At Arms
#859 - 2013-03-04 21:21:56 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

No I went on reality, unless you can name me a car company that does not own (or use government facilities) and competes directly with Toyota.


You went on reality, based on points I did not make. I made a case of a small company (small EvE Rifter builder) that even if it made as much margin as a large company (like you) he would still not be able to afford your own scale and thus he's still not able to "beat you".

So I will take that is tony in his back shed can not compete with Toyota within the same market.

And yes if he made rifters and I made jump freighters than yes the amount of my profit would be greater but back on the original point I was saying that if I was using my own manufacturing and he was renting it and we were both building rifters, does it not make sense that I should profit more per unit of rifter?


If he'd renting facilities in a lower wages and costs country than you do, then he'll still out-compete you.

So what you are saying is that facilities in more developed areas (Hi-sec) should cost more than for the other areas of space.

Good to see you agree on that, now I just need to convince you of why owning your own facilities should be more profitable within the same area.


sigh I never thought I'd like a post by you Frying but you've grown on me :).

Exactly right. Why should paying someone to do all the work be cheaper than having your own facilities? where does that make sense anywhere?

If you've never tried PvP in EvE it's quite possible you've missed out on one of the greatest rushes available in modern gaming.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#860 - 2013-03-04 21:24:24 UTC
Stray Bullets wrote:
I'm pretty sure there's guys who make more isk than me, in far less time, probably with far less skills and far less effort and I don't ***** about it being unfair nor do I expect a total noob to be able to compete with me, through normal mechanics, at the same activity, when I invested a couple of years into support skills.

I'm supposed to be more efficient than he is, period.


"Couple of years" to train production efficiency to 5 and refinery to 4 and a couple other skills? Yeah that earns you a 95% efficiency over any newbie with just 6 months under his belt!

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials