These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

If null-sec industrialism is broken, it might not be CCP's fault.

First post First post
Author
Liz Laser
Blood Tribe Inc
#181 - 2013-04-30 00:02:53 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
The gameplay that goes into fielding and wielding the power necessary to take and defend moons is considered fun by some people. Weird, I know.


+1

I'd fight over monocles if that's what got opposing fleets into the same system.
Liz Laser
Blood Tribe Inc
#182 - 2013-04-30 00:17:29 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Liz Laser wrote:



LOL. Yeah, I didn't think that one out all the way.

Still, even THAT would be more "balance" than just null getting more null-sec slots.

It might also be a bit more INTERESTING. Evil


We have ways to make high sec POS totally invulnerable that are within the rules. It would be horrid.

Also, just wondering what is balanced about null sec being unable to meet its ammo demands in peacetime due to having fewer slots than a single high sec system?


Yet null DOES meet those ammo demands. I'll posit for the moment that it manages to because it spends some of it's surplus riches.

Soon it will be able to do so because we spent our political capital.

Wanting stuff so that you experience less inconvenience doesn't always mean you are on the losing side of an unbalanced system.

And one of the beauties of Eve is that Eve manages to make nearly everyone covet.

Among my crowd of friends someone occassionally mentions wanting things and my friends and I have a standard reply: "It's good to want".

My friends obviously play MMOs. :-)

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#183 - 2013-04-30 00:21:06 UTC
Liz Laser wrote:
Yet null DOES meet those ammo demands.
…by importing from highsec, which is a much better place for industry.

Quote:
I'll posit for the moment that it manages to because it spends some of it's surplus riches.
…just like how people manages it in highsec. So that's a pretty meaningless assumption to make.
Liz Laser
Blood Tribe Inc
#184 - 2013-04-30 00:21:24 UTC
Falin Whalen wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
I'm sorry. It is just that what people get from these threads is that people in Null claim moon mining isn't as valuable as other people make it out to be. If you are saying they are valuable and worth the effort, then I'll accept that answer.

They are valuable and worth the effort, in so much as we would rather have a fight every once in a while to defend/take a moon than bore ourselves to death watching ice harvesters cycle.

Some people find the opposit appealing, and would happily mine ice rather than go and defend/blow up something.

Both are equaly valuable to their respective parties.


+1

And some of us prefer one or the other based on our mood and whether there's anything good on TV.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#185 - 2013-04-30 00:33:50 UTC
Liz Laser wrote:


Yet null DOES meet those ammo demands. I'll posit for the moment that it manages to because it spends some of it's surplus riches.

By importing it all.

Quote:
Wanting stuff so that you experience less inconvenience doesn't always mean you are on the losing side of an unbalanced system.




We literally cannot build and maintain a single fleet of battleships with our entire outpost infrastructure.
Theodoric Darkwind
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#186 - 2013-04-30 01:06:46 UTC
Liz Laser wrote:
Andski wrote:
can you tell me how we managed to reduce the number of slots in all of nullsec to a miniscule fraction of hisec's capacity through sandbox magic

because well you can't sandbox your way around hard mechanics limitations


Like I said in my OP, I have no deep conviction that my OP is right. Yours is a good point.

I imagine the NRDS crowd coveted more slots, too.

Heck, I'm sure high-sec covets more research slots.

Coveting is an essential part of Eve.


Provibloc (NRDS) and everyone else in nullsec (NBSI) have the exact same issues when it comes to industry, there is simply not enough infrastructure to do it at any decent scale, and you still have to import your low ends under the current mechanics.

The new system will finally make it profitable to actually build things in nullsec. With the current system it is better to build in highsec whenever possible and ship it to null for use.
Theodoric Darkwind
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#187 - 2013-04-30 01:19:05 UTC
Liz Laser wrote:

Yet null DOES meet those ammo demands. I'll posit for the moment that it manages to because it spends some of it's surplus riches.

Soon it will be able to do so because we spent our political capital.

Wanting stuff so that you experience less inconvenience doesn't always mean you are on the losing side of an unbalanced system.

And one of the beauties of Eve is that Eve manages to make nearly everyone covet.

Among my crowd of friends someone occassionally mentions wanting things and my friends and I have a standard reply: "It's good to want".

My friends obviously play MMOs. :-)



We only meet our logistical demands (everything from POS fuel, to ships to ammo) because we import virtually ALL of it from highsec.

One highsec system has more manufacturing slots available than several entire nullsec regions, you would literally have to seed an entire region with nothing but amarr outposts stocked with insanely expensive and craptastic upgrades to even come close to having enough slots to keep up with demand (but now your alliance is too broke to even pay sov bills).

This is also the reason why nullsec alliances don't recruit industrialists, we simply don't have anywhere for them to build things.

With the changes coming don't be suprised if nullsec alliances start actively recruiting miners and experienced industrialists.
Liz Laser
Blood Tribe Inc
#188 - 2013-04-30 01:20:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Liz Laser
baltec1 wrote:
Liz Laser wrote:


Yet null DOES meet those ammo demands. I'll posit for the moment that it manages to because it spends some of it's surplus riches.

By importing it all.

Quote:
Wanting stuff so that you experience less inconvenience doesn't always mean you are on the losing side of an unbalanced system.




We literally cannot build and maintain a single fleet of battleships with our entire outpost infrastructure.


Ok, I'm admitting ahead of time that the stuff in italics is mere supposition; I'm not a mind reader, nor do I want to force you to defend a position you don't hold. That being said, here's my reply:

And yet you have fleets.

If your argument is you'd like to do things more conveniently, cool.

If your argument is that high-sec doesn't deserve to profit off you, well they're largely footing the bill for our addiction.

If your argument for the resource shake-up is that null needs to be safer for industrialists, umm, well, when I'm feeling industrial I certainly wish I were safer too.

If your argument is that the resource shake-up will make for more good fights in Null, I say hurrah, and I'm glad I voted for null-sec CSMers.

But if your argument is that high-sec currently is on the winning side of an industrial imbalance
, that's when I start chuckling (because moon-goo is an industrial product and can solve all problems).

And for anyone in null who isn't enjoying the benefits of moon-goo.... it would seem to me that you are on the wrong side of an INTENDED industrial imbalance between the winners and losers of null-sec, and high-sec isn't your problem, except that they are working for the winners.

Not everything I want is due to being on the weaker side of industrial imbalance.

I'll grant you that it *might* be from poor game mechanics, and thus might need correcting. But beware lest we get every convenience we aim for and find we have nothing left to strive for.
MrDiao
Fuxi Legion
Fraternity.
#189 - 2013-04-30 01:31:05 UTC  |  Edited by: MrDiao
If there is anything in-game can be reasonably called "broken", then CCP definitely has responsibility on it.

If you're saying the way that players make decision "breaks" something, then it's the fault of CCP that didn't design the game in the way that suits the current human psychology.
Liz Laser
Blood Tribe Inc
#190 - 2013-04-30 01:42:02 UTC
MrDiao wrote:
If there is anything in-game can be reasonably called "broken", then CCP definitely has responsibility on it.

If you're saying the way that players make decision "breaks" something, then it's the fault of CCP that didn't design the game in the way that suits the current human psychology.


For some reason the first thing that came to my mind is the scene in Animal House where Flounder (now CCP) is told:

You f'd up; You *trusted* us!
Liz Laser
Blood Tribe Inc
#191 - 2013-04-30 02:05:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Liz Laser
Anyway, i wanted to thank those who replied.

The 4 or so threads I participated in or started this weekend are beginning to put me behind on my deliverables in real life, so I'm unlikely to reply too many more times in the next few days. I haven't lost interest in the discussion, I've just mostly, temporarily, run out of time for it.

Love ya.

p.s. feel free to continue debating with each other. (like you even need my permission).Big smile
Zhade Lezte
#192 - 2013-04-30 02:16:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Zhade Lezte
Jesus Christ, this thread.

With the amount of flat-out ignoring or failing to understand the arguments of others and reasserting your own as if your arguments were never challenged or refuted, often (but well, not always) incorrect premises, combined with the fact that you stated in another of your threads that you wanted to establish a census to "scientifically" determine the effects of recent game changes, and finally with the significant number of entirely rhetorical (not logic-based) arguments you've made.... well. I'm genuinely unsure whether you're just a bit slow and lacking in how to actually apply the scientific method, or, well, a troll.

If you're a troll, masterfully done, 10/10.

Otherwise, have a good day, enjoy your new busy job and the winning eve that comes with it*. At at least you allowed this thread to end now that pretty much everything about the subject has been said**

*The only way to win eve is to not play, if you didn't know.

**well ok maybe not, other NPC alts will keep this thread running into the ground long after you're gone. I can dream, can't I?
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#193 - 2013-04-30 02:18:50 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:

I have never seen an ice miner war on the same proportion.

Although that would be interesting to see.

you missed the great gallente ice belt war
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#194 - 2013-04-30 02:24:19 UTC
Liz Laser wrote:

Ok, I'm admitting ahead of time that the stuff in italics is mere supposition; I'm not a mind reader, nor do I want to force you to defend a position you don't hold. That being said, here's my reply:

And yet you have fleets..

the problem is not that we cannot get battleships; it's that just importing everything from empire is boring gameplay

we are not bemoaning that we cannot afford battleships because we cannot produce them locally. we are bemoaning that importing everything is boring compared to having vibrant local industry
Liz Laser
Blood Tribe Inc
#195 - 2013-04-30 02:30:52 UTC
EvilweaselSA wrote:
Liz Laser wrote:

Ok, I'm admitting ahead of time that the stuff in italics is mere supposition; I'm not a mind reader, nor do I want to force you to defend a position you don't hold. That being said, here's my reply:

And yet you have fleets..

the problem is not that we cannot get battleships; it's that just importing everything from empire is boring gameplay

we are not bemoaning that we cannot afford battleships because we cannot produce them locally. we are bemoaning that importing everything is boring compared to having vibrant local industry


Fair enough. I'm glad I voted for null-sec CSMs, and I hope a side effect of vibrant local industry is more good fights.

Zhade Lezte
#196 - 2013-04-30 02:37:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Zhade Lezte
I've found that plenty of people on the eve-o that will agree with someone just because they're on their "side" and not because the post is well-thought out or whatnot, whether that's highsec or nullsec. You just gotta be sufficiently provocative in either a pro-highsec or pro-nullsec stance and the likes will flow (or the honorable third path of being a witty goodposter, which only a few can manage). So eh, I personally wouldn't recommend taking likes received as an indication of whether you are right, and it's certainly not a way of determining whether you are right using logic or the scientific method like you claimed to want to do. If you choose to use it to as a heuristic anyways, well, I've said my piece on that.

I feel well-served by this discussion due to what other people said P. I'm just a bit surprised/confused at the debating methods you seemed to embrace given your claims in the other thread we talked in earlier today What?

And maybe I'm giving you too hard a rap; you did, as you say, learn a few things, it just seems like you also tend to ignore or fail to understand quite a few arguments. And I'm probably mixing you up with a couple of the other NPC alts since I didn't have time to carefully read everyone's post. vOv

Welp, such is the nature of the eve-o forums.
Liz Laser
Blood Tribe Inc
#197 - 2013-04-30 02:45:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Liz Laser
I never claimed to be a genius. read my bio.

But yes, having statistics available would seem to make for better discussions than not having statistics available.

(THat's why I found Tippia's 250K man hours stat so intriguing)

And while I may have been perceived as pro-(choose-a-side), at no point did I ever suggest in any of these discussions that we should get CCP to stop their resource shake-up. So any side that would back me just for my stance isn't going to get any tangible result from that backing.

Yet you may still be right about the likes, which means I really was boring as snot during the rest of my posting career, and still am. Big smile
Liz Laser
Blood Tribe Inc
#198 - 2013-04-30 03:48:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Liz Laser
Zhade Lezte wrote:


And maybe I'm giving you too hard a rap; you did, as you say, learn a few things, it just seems like you also tend to ignore or fail to understand quite a few arguments. And I'm probably mixing you up with a couple of the other NPC alts since I didn't have time to carefully read everyone's post. vOv



I think you have confused me with others, too. There was one that, although perhaps on my side of the argument, also seemed (even to me) to really be missing people's points.

I found some of those defending the resource shake-up made good points and even said so a few times.

The one point I just stubbornly clinged to, though, is that because moon-goo fixes all problems, null-sec doesn't get to claim an industry imbalance with high-sec as justification for their wants and desires, at least, not without me laughing. While some of the arguments against such a stance were interesting, I just haven't read anything, yet, convincing enough for me to capitulate on that point.

If people think the resource shake-up will just be more fun, cool, say so. Some did, and I hope they are right.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#199 - 2013-04-30 04:21:39 UTC
Theodoric Darkwind wrote:
Liz Laser wrote:

Yet null DOES meet those ammo demands. I'll posit for the moment that it manages to because it spends some of it's surplus riches.

Soon it will be able to do so because we spent our political capital.

Wanting stuff so that you experience less inconvenience doesn't always mean you are on the losing side of an unbalanced system.

And one of the beauties of Eve is that Eve manages to make nearly everyone covet.

Among my crowd of friends someone occassionally mentions wanting things and my friends and I have a standard reply: "It's good to want".

My friends obviously play MMOs. :-)



We only meet our logistical demands (everything from POS fuel, to ships to ammo) because we import virtually ALL of it from highsec.

One highsec system has more manufacturing slots available than several entire nullsec regions, you would literally have to seed an entire region with nothing but amarr outposts stocked with insanely expensive and craptastic upgrades to even come close to having enough slots to keep up with demand (but now your alliance is too broke to even pay sov bills).

This is also the reason why nullsec alliances don't recruit industrialists, we simply don't have anywhere for them to build things.

With the changes coming don't be suprised if nullsec alliances start actively recruiting miners and experienced industrialists.


5 hi-sec systems have more manufacturing that all of sov Nullsec in total.

"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.
#200 - 2013-04-30 04:24:02 UTC
Liz Laser wrote:
Zhade Lezte wrote:


And maybe I'm giving you too hard a rap; you did, as you say, learn a few things, it just seems like you also tend to ignore or fail to understand quite a few arguments. And I'm probably mixing you up with a couple of the other NPC alts since I didn't have time to carefully read everyone's post. vOv



I think you have confused me with others, too. There was one that, although perhaps on my side of the argument, also seemed (even to me) to really be missing people's points.

I found some of those defending the resource shake-up made good points and even said so a few times.

The one point I just stubbornly clinged to, though, is that because moon-goo fixes all problems, null-sec doesn't get to claim an industry imbalance with high-sec as justification for their wants and desires, at least, not without me laughing. While some of the arguments against such a stance were interesting, I just haven't read anything, yet, convincing enough for me to capitulate on that point.

If people think the resource shake-up will just be more fun, cool, say so. Some did, and I hope they are right.


Moongoo fixes all problems? Maybe if you're in one of the few alliances lucky enough to have significant moon income, it fixes some financial problems, but this isn't about moon income, it's about everyday activity in alliance space. It's about the average member who has an ISK making alt being forced to keep that alt in empire. It's about the way 0.0 space is deserted except for ratters. It's about the way that alliances don't eed to use the majority of their space for anything except visiting a moon twice a month.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016