These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: Player Owned Customs offices in Hi-Sec

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
None ofthe Above
#301 - 2013-10-02 17:16:53 UTC  |  Edited by: None ofthe Above
Weaselior wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:

While you seem to think that things should be handed to the big guy.

I believe he and others don't want to see the system itself simply pull something they have out of their hands and handed over to the biggest alliances.

Given those opposing views, taking a stance somewhere in the middle would be the way to find balance, no?

nothing is handed to us, we are merely the best and everyone is recognizing they will lose opposing us in a fair fight and is crying to be given a handicap rather than trying to beat us on a level playing field


Sooooooo if GEWNS start bashing an Interbus CO, players can't defend it or fight you back unless they pay to wardec you. That fee is higher for large alliances like you than anyone else in the game.

That's your idea of an even playing field?

I like the proposal generally, I just want to see some details reconsidered.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
None ofthe Above
#302 - 2013-10-02 17:20:03 UTC
Niko Lorenzio wrote:
Love the idea and looking forward to seeing what it does to HS, BUT I'm a bit confused regarding the skill.
I've never dealt with POCOs but my assumption is that there is ALWAYS a certain amount of NPC tax even on player owned POCOs, right? Otherwise the new skill doesn't make sense as the NPC POCOs will be wiped out within a couple of years and the skill will be useless.


There is an NPC tax even on Player Owned Customs Offices in High Sec under the current proposal.

Since the skill affects that tax, no it would never be completely useless to any one that actually does PI.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#303 - 2013-10-02 17:26:32 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:

While you seem to think that things should be handed to the big guy.

I believe he and others don't want to see the system itself simply pull something they have out of their hands and handed over to the biggest alliances.

Given those opposing views, taking a stance somewhere in the middle would be the way to find balance, no?

nothing is handed to us, we are merely the best and everyone is recognizing they will lose opposing us in a fair fight and is crying to be given a handicap rather than trying to beat us on a level playing field


Sooooooo if GEWNS start bashing an Interbus CO, players can't defend it or fight you back unless they pay to wardec you. That fee is higher for large alliances like you than anyone else in the game.

That's your idea of an even playing field?

I like the proposal generally, I just want to see some details reconsidered.


Yes actually. Given the level of income it would take to make us interested in a POCO for income purposes it is perfectly balanced to require a 500m wardec.. The strawman that OMG Goons are going to take every POCO is hilarious but not reality.

It is almost like wardec fees are likely to scale based on the income level of the POCOs being held. Shocking concept I know.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#304 - 2013-10-02 17:37:08 UTC
Bethan Le Troix wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Elemenohpee wrote:
So all that's going to happen is a large nullsec entity hits a whole bunch of highsec customs offices and puts up their own pocos setting 60% tax, meaning I pay 70% tax overall.

It then costs me 500 mill to dec them to hit their poco, which I wont bother doing as to make that back from hisec pi will take months.

So basically your giving large null alliances free isk.

GG

Maybe if you hold sov you shouldn't be able to hold highsec pocos?


Nah, why would we do that? Then no one uses them and we don't actually make any isk for them. Unless you're saying you're dumb enough to pay a 70% tax anyway.

Here's what really happens.

You train the skill right away, lowering the NPC portion of the tax to 5%.

Then, we seize the POCOs right away, at least some of them, and set our own tax to something - probably, as it happens, 5%.

Then RvB or someone contests our pocos and in the ongoing monthlong war, they're constantly being destroyed and reinforced, such that everyone who was using them before moves to different systems.

Lol


Is it just me or does it seem rather unsettling and/or corrupt for Mynnna to be both on the CSM, a major stakeholder in the GSF, and talking about possible GSF tactics regarding POCOs in high sec ? It seems to remind me of RL situations involving union reps also holding sub-management positions in companies and conflicts of interest deriving from the combination of posts/telling employees & union members what to do.
(I won't go any further into that RL situation lest I land myself in RL trouble. ) Blink


Of course it is corrupt.
Why do you think the goons want to ensure they have such an overwhelming voice on the CSM?
Green Gambit
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#305 - 2013-10-02 17:49:38 UTC
Elana Maggal wrote:

I think there is this underlying assumption that Eve gameply in hi-sec - and those players who play Eve in hi-sec (some exclusively) want this kind of WAR activity.


I know of 6000 players who play eve almost exclusively in high-sec, who are looking forward to this...

And I wouldn't be surprised to see E-UNI and their 2000 members take part in claiming some POCOs around the area where they're based.

So that's 8000 hi-sec players that will get some additional content.

I really hate it when lone players start claiming to talk of all of high sec...
None ofthe Above
#306 - 2013-10-02 17:57:04 UTC
Aryth wrote:


Yes actually. Given the level of income it would take to make us interested in a POCO for income purposes it is perfectly balanced to require a 500m wardec.. The strawman that OMG Goons are going to take every POCO is hilarious but not reality.

It is almost like wardec fees are likely to scale based on the income level of the POCOs being held. Shocking concept I know.


Amusingly, it's actually a strawman attack to bring up the strawman "that OMG Goons are going to take every POCO" with me, since that's not a claim I believe I ever made.

I have other concerns that I elucidated, and I believe are far more realistic.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#307 - 2013-10-02 18:05:51 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:

Sooooooo if GEWNS start bashing an Interbus CO, players can't defend it or fight you back unless they pay to wardec you. That fee is higher for large alliances like you than anyone else in the game.

That's your idea of an even playing field?

I like the proposal generally, I just want to see some details reconsidered.

interbus pocos are not designed to be defended or preserved, they are intended as a bridge between the highsec-coddling present and the strong, vigorous future

all balance discussions should revolve around player combat over player owned pocos

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Green Gambit
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#308 - 2013-10-02 18:06:02 UTC
Elana Maggal wrote:

I think here is the problem in a nutshell. The idea that Eve must "get away from it's safe industrial base." I disagree. I think there is room in the sand box for both types of play. There is plenty of PvP in low-sec and nul-sec. Not every player in Eve wants to PvP - some actually want to build stuff, and do it in the relative safety of hi-sec.

The problem has been this insistence that the Builders of Eve must also be PvP'rs. I think that makes the sand box smaller.

There is plenty of ways to expand the game and make the game more exciting for nul-sec alliances other than just opening up hi-sec to them. It's just too bad CPP doesn't have the imagination or creativity to think of better ways than this idiotic hi-sec POCO plan (at least the way it stands now.)


Straw man.

I didn't suggest forcing industrialists to PvP. I said that industry should not be safe and should involve varying levels of risk, for which you get different levels of reward.

The example I used was manufacturing costs, and that manufacturing in null-sec - which carries more risk - should therefore be cheaper. I'm not forcing you to manufacture in null-sec, you can accept less risk and pay more. Alternatively you may be able to manufacture in null-sec with the reduced cost base, and find somebody else willing to take on the shipping risk.

Even in the simple example above, there are now choices to be made, deals to be struck and opportunities for smarter players to get ahead in the game.

And I've still not forced anybody to PvP in spaceships.

Even with the POCOs, there's no insistance that you get involved with PvP. You can pay RvB to clear a POCO so you can claim it for your corp. Then you can tax it!

Despite what's being said in this topic, it's exteremely unlikely that all high-sec is going to be owned by Goons. It's also unlikely that all high-sec is even going to be owned by the larger entities.

So if you want to continue to do PI, it's just a matter of finding some planets where the POCO has a reasonable owner.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#309 - 2013-10-02 18:10:58 UTC
Elana Maggal wrote:

I think here is the problem in a nutshell. The idea that Eve must "get away from it's safe industrial base." I disagree. I think there is room in the sand box for both types of play. There is plenty of PvP in low-sec and nul-sec. Not every player in Eve wants to PvP - some actually want to build stuff, and do it in the relative safety of hi-sec.

The problem has been this insistence that the Builders of Eve must also be PvP'rs. I think that makes the sand box smaller.

There is plenty of ways to expand the game and make the game more exciting for nul-sec alliances other than just opening up hi-sec to them. It's just too bad CPP doesn't have the imagination or creativity to think of better ways than this idiotic hi-sec POCO plan (at least the way it stands now.)

you are free to pay a reasonably-priced exorbitant tribute to goonswarm for pvp-free access to our upcoming poco empire

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#310 - 2013-10-02 18:20:41 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:
Aryth wrote:


Yes actually. Given the level of income it would take to make us interested in a POCO for income purposes it is perfectly balanced to require a 500m wardec.. The strawman that OMG Goons are going to take every POCO is hilarious but not reality.

It is almost like wardec fees are likely to scale based on the income level of the POCOs being held. Shocking concept I know.


Amusingly, it's actually a strawman attack to bring up the strawman "that OMG Goons are going to take every POCO" with me, since that's not a claim I believe I ever made.

I have other concerns that I elucidated, and I believe are far more realistic.


Then your argument about wardec fees is pointless. Unless there are large entities holding some sizeable portion of highsec pocos, then arguing about their fees is a waste of time.


Either Goons and our max wardec fee is an issue because we will hold a lot of POCOs, or it isn't because we won't. Or other entities with max fees or close to it. (not many exist) If you agree that it isn't realistic then why are we even talking about max fees?

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
None ofthe Above
#311 - 2013-10-02 18:23:39 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:

Sooooooo if GEWNS start bashing an Interbus CO, players can't defend it or fight you back unless they pay to wardec you. That fee is higher for large alliances like you than anyone else in the game.

That's your idea of an even playing field?

I like the proposal generally, I just want to see some details reconsidered.

interbus pocos are not designed to be defended or preserved, they are intended as a bridge between the highsec-coddling present and the strong, vigorous future

all balance discussions should revolve around player combat over player owned pocos


Must not discuss any economic balance whatsoever? Funny coming from you.

But okay, what do you think about my recommendation that pilots shooting at Interbus COs should get a suspect flag? Or should those pilots be protected by CONCORD while they are doing this?

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Fix Lag
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#312 - 2013-10-02 18:26:22 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Why do you think the goons want to ensure they have such an overwhelming voice on the CSM?


Because when there were stupid pubbies running the CSM, stupid shit was getting implemented.

CCP mostly sucks at their job, but Veritas is a pretty cool dude.
Raindeth
FACTION Inc.
Still Irrelevant
#313 - 2013-10-02 18:26:29 UTC
Quote:
Raindeth wrote:
High-sec POCOs: Another genuinely good CCP idea that is about to be ruined by CCP because they are BAD at details!

Let me fix it for you:

1. Make customs offices have NOTHING to do with CONCORD. Anyone doing anything to a CO will not be accosted by CONCORD, nor protected by them. Incidentally, this makes sense as CONCORD is losing control of all of their COs. Why should they protect anything? So, this will remove the prohibitive wardec cost which has been oft brought up in this thread (and has yet to even be acknowledged by CCP). Also, whomever is attacking a POCO will get a suspect flag, making them attack-able by anyone in system, including a bunch of non-affiliated solo players who can "work together" on the reinforce timer to protect the CO if they like the tax levels and/or owning corp/alliance.


Concord will protect player owned customs offices for the same reason they protect player POS's and player ships. If you didn't require a wardec to destroy a POCO, then groups could simply destroy every customs office in highsec, and nobody would be able to prevent it.


Wrong, Sir. Please reread what I actually wrote. Hint: It is above starting from "Also, whomever is attacking a POCO will get a suspect flag..."

Quote:

Raindeth wrote:
2. Remove NPC tax completely from POCOs. These are PLAYER OWNED Customs Offices. The incentive to use lowsec COs should have nothing to do with an NPC imposed tax. Better resources maybe? Maybe.. just MAYBE lowsec should have the best resources.. better than nullsec since given risk vs reward it is definitely more risky to do PI in lowsec than in nullsec or wormholes. An NPC tax on highsec doesn't even address the incentive to use lowsec. It only lowers the revenue collected by highsec POCO owners, as they will adjust their tax rates to keep people in highsec.


Why is it more risky to do PI in lowsec as opposed to nullsec? In lowsec there are no bubbles to catch your ship, so something like a viator can very easily, and low risk, enter lowsec and collect resources. I'll concur that trying to do PI in Amamake would be difficult, just like trying to do PI in a hostile nullsec system would be difficult, but so what. The NPC tax plays a major role in distinguishing the profitability between highsec and lowsec/nullsec/wh operations. This is a GOOD thing!


I'll answer that question if you honestly don't know. Nullsec is often controlled by large groups of players called, "alliances." These groups often set up tools like, "intel channels" that allow the members to know whether there is anyone unfriendly to the alliance even in the space, nevermind poised to attack. Also, most of nullsec is very empty. Conversely, lowsec is usually teeming with griefers from several different corps or alliances. The sheer numbers difference makes lowsec much more risky than nullsec, or wormholes, despite the possibility of the use of bubbles (which one can scan for before warping to a planet).

Quote:

Protecting your POCO with isk. Did you know you can.... if your POCO is attacked, be waiting to anchor an install another POCO (preferable in an alt corp) the moment yours gets blown up. Pay mercs to protect it. Pay the attackers to leave it alone. As for inhibiting attack via isk, this would defeat one of the major, major purposes of POCO's.... To be a conflict driver!


1. Anchoring another POCO is not protecting your POCO.
2. Paying player mercs is close, but that is not necessarily reliable.
3. Paying extortion to the attackers only invites more extortion.
4. Inhibiting attack with ISK. Well, if that is really the issue (and I'm not sure it is) you could have defenses that only pop up after an attack has begun. I've seen such a thing in missions. I have faith the CCP programmers could come up with something.


Although, I think you missed most of the points, thanks for responding.
None ofthe Above
#314 - 2013-10-02 18:27:40 UTC
Aryth wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:
Aryth wrote:


Yes actually. Given the level of income it would take to make us interested in a POCO for income purposes it is perfectly balanced to require a 500m wardec.. The strawman that OMG Goons are going to take every POCO is hilarious but not reality.

It is almost like wardec fees are likely to scale based on the income level of the POCOs being held. Shocking concept I know.


Amusingly, it's actually a strawman attack to bring up the strawman "that OMG Goons are going to take every POCO" with me, since that's not a claim I believe I ever made.

I have other concerns that I elucidated, and I believe are far more realistic.


Then your argument about wardec fees is pointless. Unless there are large entities holding some sizeable portion of highsec pocos, then arguing about their fees is a waste of time.


Either Goons and our max wardec fee is an issue because we will hold a lot of POCOs, or it isn't because we won't. Or other entities with max fees or close to it. (not many exist) If you agree that it isn't realistic then why are we even talking about max fees?


You've made it clear you will be grabbing some enough to engage in griefing even according to some of your members at least. Other entities like RvB have also stated plans. It's part of the discussion, why are you bothering to deny it?

If Goons don't find it worth their time, others will. This to me is not anti-goon discussion, it's a discussion about game mechanics.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Elana Maggal
Chandra Labs
#315 - 2013-10-02 18:27:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Elana Maggal
Green Gambit wrote:
[quote=Elana Maggal]

Despite what's being said in this topic, it's exteremely unlikely that all high-sec is going to be owned by Goons. It's also unlikely that all high-sec is even going to be owned by the larger entities.

So if you want to continue to do PI, it's just a matter of finding some planets where the POCO has a reasonable owner.


Uh huh - the nul-sec Alliances will have no interest in hi-sec POCOs (hi-sec, where a major portion of the Industrial base in Eve resides). Why bother with them eh?

Wow - biggest line of delusional Goon turd I've heard so far.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#316 - 2013-10-02 18:29:27 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:

But okay, what do you think about my recommendation that pilots shooting at Interbus COs should get a suspect flag? Or should those pilots be protected by CONCORD while they are doing this?

disincentivizes the initial clearing of interbus pocos which is a highly-desired goal, interbus pocos are there to exist until someone wishes to claim the planet to prevent all pi from seizing up

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
None ofthe Above
#317 - 2013-10-02 18:33:16 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:

But okay, what do you think about my recommendation that pilots shooting at Interbus COs should get a suspect flag? Or should those pilots be protected by CONCORD while they are doing this?

disincentivizes the initial clearing of interbus pocos which is a highly-desired goal, interbus pocos are there to exist until someone wishes to claim the planet to prevent all pi from seizing up


I am sorry, I read that as:

Ablooo bloo bloo, mean old high secc'ers might shoot at our nullbears while we take over their space.

Did I get that right?

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#318 - 2013-10-02 18:35:28 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:

I am sorry, I read that as:

Ablooo bloo bloo, mean old high secc'ers might shoot at our nullbears while we take over their space.

Did I get that right?

you did not you sound like you need an eye exam and perhaps a neurological exam

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#319 - 2013-10-02 18:36:36 UTC
interbus pocos exist because otherwise all pi production would come to a screeching halt until pocos were reestablished and exist for no other reason and the faster they are cleared and replaced the quicker the mechanic produces its desired result

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Elana Maggal
Chandra Labs
#320 - 2013-10-02 18:37:09 UTC
Green Gambit= wrote:

Even with the POCOs, there's no insistance that you get involved with PvP. You can pay RvB to clear a POCO so you can claim it for your corp. Then you can tax it!


Give me a fukken break. Maybe this is why hi-sec Industrialists don't want to deal with the nul-sec sociopathic crowd ...