EVE General Discussion

Yup, pretty much this. It used to be that you could be strong but poor (PvP alliance) or weak but rich (industrial alliance), because making lots of money and being militarily strong required fundamentally different internal cultures/structures, and every alliance had to decide where it wanted to fall on that spectrum. With the advent of supermoons, being strong and being rich fed into each other, and suddenly there was no upside to being an industrial alliance.

(This is my go-to example for unintended consequences in emergent design.)

People will definitely fight for passive income.

What I am amazed at, though, is the mechanics of it aren't automatically spread amongst the people who hold that space.

The mechanics of moon-goo seem to ASSURE that it passes from the hands of a single owner to other hands only if the owner chooses. I'm also surprised that it took a long time for populism (or feigned populism if you're a skeptic) to become emergent gameplay under such a system. While Null needs something to fight over, I'm not convinced we need KINGPINS, Nor am I convinced that leaders wouldn't emerge simply from cults of personality and successful results seen by their followers. While I have managed to find very personable benevolent dictators and enjoyed the generous SRPs of those benevolent dictators, it is curious that the "something to fight over in Null" isn't something the holders of that space would accrue just for being there or from working the space. It is parceled out by leaders in an almost feudalistic manner. Does CCP intend to ever change the leader driven bottleneck of those riches?

btw, I understand leaders need a way to pay for upgrade costs, etc. but that could happen through something like taxes (if CCP arranged a system where taxes were harder to dodge).

But I'm learning soooo much. Seriously, these dev responses in particular have been quite informative.

Also, the number of LIKES I have has quadrupled this weekend. While I've never posted for LIKES, this weekend's posts certainly seem to interest other readers.

But as far as my ignorance... I don't pretend to be a genius, read my bio.

But I post about what I'm interested in. You're free to ignore it.

You're also free to troll me. Carry on.

There are those that agreed with some of this weekend's posts.

But, perhaps anyone who disagrees with YOU are morons?

In THIS topic's OP I specifically said I wasn't speaking from conviction, but was interested in opinions on the idea, so yeah, I took what might *admittedly* be a weak argument and threw it out there to see where the flaws might be. It's not the only way to learn, but it is one method.

I've heard your opinion. Thanks.

Some college argument and debate classes are like this, and I suppose yes you do learn things.

For one they teach people to avoid personal attacks and belittling of the opponent.

I mean the professor will most likley give bad marks to the person who called their opponent stupid even if the person in question said something that had little to do with factual reality.

Sadly, most people on EVE forums think they win the argument by dismissing the opposition and calling their ideas dumb.

Confirming everything is always CCPs fault.

Also confirming everyone should become NRDS and join the Provi-Bloc Coalition.

The problem with null industry is that it's currently almost impossible to source low-end minerals locally at a decent price in any reasonable quantity unless you invest substantial resources into growing your own mining corporation. Because of the way mineral markets work, in most situations a miner can make just as much mining in high-sec as in null after accounting for the all the hassles mining in null involves. So there's no point in mining in null as a way of making ISK, when you can make a similar amount in high-sec for less effort and without having to listen to alliance command cry about mining alts during ops.

And even if you grow that fleet, current hidden belts are so skewed towards high-ends that fully mining out certain grav sites won't produce enough tritanium for a single Rokh, so an industrialist would have to import low-end minerals anyway. At that point, most folk throw up their hands and choose to produce in high-sec, because it takes substantially less effort.

Thankfully, Odyssey will fix that by substantially increasing null low-end supply and ISK output.

Arguably, making bulk logistics more difficult would encourage null industry by separating null and high-sec markets, and forcing null to produce ships and such locally. But that would still require a decent local source of low-ends, which is coming with Odyssey.

Structurally, the current game mechanics disincentivize null industry, outside of certain specific circumstances. This has been the case for years, and I wrote as much when eliminating drone alloys was seriously proposed. Once the mineral supply is sufficient to sustain industrial activity, it may make a lot of sense to nerf module-based mineral compression into the ground, and maybe to also increase the volume of ships across the board to make importing them more difficult.

Moons have nothing to do with it. Ditto outpost build slots. Moons are a problem, in part because they're a mostly-passive source of income that requires substantial resources to take and control, but once controlled can be a fountain of ISK that pays for maintaining control. War is expensive, after all. Although moons also provide objectives to fight over, so they're not all bad.

All that said, I do agree broadly with CCP Greyscale, in that moons are not healthy for the game, and it would be nice if alliances were to rely more on PvE activity for funding things like ship replacement and such.

If you work at a job solely to maximize profit, you will find yourself hating your job no matter how much money it pays.

Ice miners are proof of this. Hell, all miners are proof of this lol.

Better to find a way to earn more doing what you like at a paycut than chase the almighty isk.

Absolutely these changes will help with localisation in 0.0.

With the Ice changes in the next expansion, a 20% reduction in ice products is definately going to make fuel and topes more expensive for towers and JFs. This will also have a knock on effect of restricting capital movement, so all you higsec whiners complaining about cap/supercap force projection can stop b!tch!ng complaining.

I agree. Moons as a "conflict driver" is a terrible idea because at some point you will simply "win" and hope the winning side "loses" by way of fail cascade. That in turn breeds a "if you don't like it make your own and come at us" approach which is inheritantly one sided.

So now, you have people/forces producing a diamond quality ship, but still insisting they need the tin quality ships in order to survive.

While you do not NEED t1 hulls to survive in null anymore, it definitely makes it easier on the wallet.

In short, null just might be outgrowing itself. Hence the change.

It seemed to have been better when the world was much bigger. Now you have coalitions of thousands of pilots playing political metagames and using ships as toys because that moongoo/territory is so hungrily coveted that the dynamics of fear that should keep null in check subsides.

Power projection is trivialized.

Hotdrop for boredom? Done.

Black Ops roams? Done.

FW stagnating? Roam to NPC null (that BO hotdrop was pretty impressive in Syndicate btw Samurai Pizza Cats!) at a drop of the hat.

Everything bleeds over.

Now, with industry centralized to their own sectors, perhaps we will see more isk lost into blown up supercaps and see strategy have to win the day as opposed to throwing money at a wall.

Quantity is it's own quality, but it isn't that good.