These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Insights into 2013 production and destruction

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Arana Mirelin
Te'Rava Industries
#61 - 2014-02-07 16:44:33 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

We're talking about EVE online, Not Pinky Hops personal preferences online. Null (or any) players wanting to and being able to live in null (or any) space rather than being shackled to "the npc core worlds" so to speak would be a better thing for the game in general.

Because having things (like null factories) to win or lose, to fight over or destroy yourself to keep your enemy from getting them is a better game play experience than "gee, lets build stuff in safety , stuff it into a jump freighter, make 2 jumps and log off from boredom".


Anybody who wants to live out there can. I don't feel "shackled" to anything as-is.

As for forcing factories out there to fight over, if you'll notice, the major null coalitions seem to be going the way of "We don't want to fight over anything meaningful" as it is.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#62 - 2014-02-07 17:21:12 UTC
I'd like to see Highsec industry slots going the way of the dodo. (Ideally with the ability to outsource a job to someone else's array. Throw in an NPC hauler to take stuff from the station to the array. Who can be targeted, like the current NPC haulers.)

/But/ there would need to be a fairly low barrier to entry alternative (which could be used anywhere)

POS are a little higher barrier than I'd like. Especially the moon anchoring requirement.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#63 - 2014-02-07 23:33:11 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
I'd like to see Highsec industry slots going the way of the dodo. (Ideally with the ability to outsource a job to someone else's array. Throw in an NPC hauler to take stuff from the station to the array. Who can be targeted, like the current NPC haulers.)

/But/ there would need to be a fairly low barrier to entry alternative (which could be used anywhere)

POS are a little higher barrier than I'd like. Especially the moon anchoring requirement.


Well said. It would have to go hand in hand with pos/general structure revamp.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Braeriach
Cevelo
#64 - 2014-02-08 07:58:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Braeriach
+1 for d3 use.

I've been a fan for a while and seen some amazing interactive stuff. It's nice to see some inaccessible EVE data presented with it.

TreeMap anyone?

Edit:

Thoroughly recommend bl.ocks.org for sharing d3 examples. It's a gist viewer created by Mike Bostock (d3's Dad). Here's his: http://bl.ocks.org/mbostock
Braeriach
Cevelo
#65 - 2014-02-08 09:47:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Braeriach
TreeMap doesn't work (I shouldn't be surprised). The Force Layout view is much more appealing to look at.

Full view: http://bl.ocks.org/Braeriach/raw/8879493/

Code: http://bl.ocks.org/Braeriach/8879493

I might refine it later...
Braeriach
Cevelo
#66 - 2014-02-08 21:11:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Braeriach
I dropped the TreeMap idea - it doesn't look as good.

Here's another version very similar to CCP Quant's awesome orginal. This version has a combobox in the top left to choose between year and value/ships. There is a transistion animation between selections, but it's definately on the slow side.

I dropped the system names (no reason other than corner cutting and laziness), but the tool tip works on hover as usual.

Full: http://bl.ocks.org/Braeriach/raw/8890158/
block: http://bl.ocks.org/Braeriach/8890158

Edit: Added - Click a system to select it, and follow it through transition. This answers the "where'd that big one come from?" question.
Braeriach
Cevelo
#67 - 2014-02-09 08:47:16 UTC
Morning. Me again.

A slight addition to the last one. I've introduced a couple of new measures for value per ship in each year.

Is the value only value tied to ship losses, or anything destroyed?
What have you been destroying in Polaris this year CCP?

:D
Sable Moran
Moran Light Industries
#68 - 2014-02-09 16:55:35 UTC
See that turquoise circle with Ale in it in the production graph? That's my ammo shop right there. CoolBearP

Sable's Ammo Shop at Alentene V - Moon 4 - Duvolle Labs Factory. Hybrid charges, Projectile ammo, Missiles, Drones, Ships, Need'em? We have'em, at affordable prices. Pop in at our Ammo Shop in sunny Alentene.
Skalle Pande
Teknisk Forlag
#69 - 2014-02-09 20:10:34 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Pinky Hops wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
In 10 years of EVE online despite wars killing missions of space ships, furious building activity (hundreds of expensive stations) null sec only has something like 3% of high sec's industrial capacity. Trillions of isk and millions of actual human man hours spent on 3% of the Industrial capacity high sec gets FOR FREE.

And your solution to this screwed up situation is quadrillions more isk and hundreds of millions more man hours to have more industrial capacity than you types get FOR FREE?


Yup.

There's a lot of land in the Arctic. You could fill it with many car factories if you wanted, but it's still not a wise idea to do it in general, which is why it isn't done.

This isn't rocket science.

Moving production into nullsec wouldn't make the game better -- it would just make industry something you need to be in a giant coalition to do properly, which would SUCK for the game.

PvP in nullsec? Heck yes -- sign me up.

Industry in nullsec? Hell no.


We're talking about EVE online, Not Pinky Hops personal preferences online. Null (or any) players wanting to and being able to live in null (or any) space rather than being shackled to "the npc core worlds" so to speak would be a better thing for the game in general.

Because having things (like null factories) to win or lose, to fight over or destroy yourself to keep your enemy from getting them is a better game play experience than "gee, lets build stuff in safety , stuff it into a jump freighter, make 2 jumps and log off from boredom".

As far as I know there is nothing stopping null-sec'ers from setting up industry. So, when it is not usually done, it must be assumed that people living in null usually find other aspects of the game more interesting. That is as it should be. Really, industry, like mining has lots of tedium in it, and if people can't be bothered with that particular kind of tedium that goes with doing industry in null, well and good.

And here, I think, is the point in Pinky Hops' arguments: Industry in null is probably even more tedious than it is in high, not because of lack of slots (those you could just build) but because of the added burden of maintaining the security of industrial facilities on a round-the-clock basis. There is nothing stopping you from setting up, but on the other hand it is often hard stop others from kicking your sandcastle over. It is expensive, well, but first of all it forces you to spend your time doing things you don't want to, such as standing guard or riding shotgun, besides hauling large amounts of stuff and all the regular chores of industry. It can be done, no doubt, but you don't LIKE it. That, however, has nothing to do with industry, it is the INTENDED consequence and challenge of living in null: You can't be safe. You chose that yourself, don't whine when it turns out that you get what you ask for.

Steve Ronuken wrote:
I'd like to see Highsec industry slots going the way of the dodo. (Ideally with the ability to outsource a job to someone else's array. Throw in an NPC hauler to take stuff from the station to the array. Who can be targeted, like the current NPC haulers.)

So what I don't get is this: Why is it so F****** important to you to make sure that carebear industralists and miners (like me), who like the chores and tedium of industry and prefers the safety of Empire space can't be tolerated? I mean, if we were not there, who would you gank? Who would make a lot of the stuff you need to keep your wars and youur pvp going? Who would be the sink for all your plexes, when you can't be bothered with grinding the necessary resources and ISKs, before you head out to burn another capital? Part of the game is, of course, that you come to make us miserable (as well as byuing our stuff and reselling the modules, you looted from our wrecks back to us). But above the ingame harassment, why on Earth are you not just happy that morons like me are in the game to do all the stuff you don't fancy? Steve, I don't think you will get my vote for CSM9.

It is as Pinky Hops said: We all have different definitions of "fun". The job for CCP, obviously, is to make sure that as many people as possible can find ways to have their own personal kind of fun in this game, as this will maximize CCP profits. And they seem to know that, luckily. Otherwise, all you warmeisters of null would have to do your own mining and building and general grinding, having far less time to blow other people up. And would you like it? I think not.
Skalle Pande
Teknisk Forlag
#70 - 2014-02-09 21:44:29 UTC
CCP Quant wrote:
Just to keep this thread in sync with reddit

I've made a few forks of the graph on JSFiddle by requests... I see where this is going so I think I'll make due with these for now Big smile

EVE Online destruction 2014 to date

EVE Online ships destroyed 2014 to date

EVE Online ships destroyed in 2013
Just noticed, and it intrigues me a bit: What happened to the 11 Tril ISK blown up in B-R5RB? The chart says 7 Tril now.... why the difference? Exaggerated stats for headline purposes in the first place?
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#71 - 2014-02-09 22:07:31 UTC
Skalle Pande wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
I'd like to see Highsec industry slots going the way of the dodo. (Ideally with the ability to outsource a job to someone else's array. Throw in an NPC hauler to take stuff from the station to the array. Who can be targeted, like the current NPC haulers.)

So what I don't get is this: Why is it so F****** important to you to make sure that carebear industralists and miners (like me), who like the chores and tedium of industry and prefers the safety of Empire space can't be tolerated? I mean, if we were not there, who would you gank? Who would make a lot of the stuff you need to keep your wars and youur pvp going? Who would be the sink for all your plexes, when you can't be bothered with grinding the necessary resources and ISKs, before you head out to burn another capital? Part of the game is, of course, that you come to make us miserable (as well as byuing our stuff and reselling the modules, you looted from our wrecks back to us). But above the ingame harassment, why on Earth are you not just happy that morons like me are in the game to do all the stuff you don't fancy? Steve, I don't think you will get my vote for CSM9.

It is as Pinky Hops said: We all have different definitions of "fun". The job for CCP, obviously, is to make sure that as many people as possible can find ways to have their own personal kind of fun in this game, as this will maximize CCP profits. And they seem to know that, luckily. Otherwise, all you warmeisters of null would have to do your own mining and building and general grinding, having far less time to blow other people up. And would you like it? I think not.



It should be noted that I'm a highsec industrialist. That's how I make my ISK.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#72 - 2014-02-09 22:53:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Rinn
Skalle Pande wrote:
So what I don't get is this: Why is it so F****** important to you to make sure that care bear industrialists and miners (like me), who like the chores and tedium of industry and prefers the safety of Empire space can't be tolerated?


What is important to EVE is that the economy is player-driven. Players build the stuff. Players mine the stuff. Players research the stuff.

In hi sec the economy is (to a large extent) NPC-driven: if you want research or assembly slots, just wait in line at the unassailable NPC slots from which nobody can steal your output. There's no need to trust, there's no opportunity for betrayal, there's no benefit to making friends and forming a community.

Skalle Pande wrote:
I mean, if we were not there, who would you gank?


If hi sec industrialists needed to set up their own infrastructure — just like people in low- and null-sec — there would be more opportunity for ganking and actual PvP. Steve and others like him (I dare to place myself in the same group as Steve) simply want a fair game: why should industrialists have an invulnerable infrastructure while the people flying spaceships are vulnerable any time they're in space? Even better, if everyone was subject to the same rules (i.e.: player-built infrastructure was faster/more efficient/cheaper than NPC services), there would be incentives for null sec industry to be done in null sec rather than the dozen systems around Jita.

At FanFest 2013, CCP Soundwave presented the "design principles" for EVE Online:

  • No game should be more complex than it absolutely needs to be to meet its goals.
  • A good feature can be based on positive or negative player interaction.
  • Other players will always be more interesting, for longer, than designed experiences.
  • Every system should affect, and be affected by, the wider world of the game.
  • Here are the tools, do something cool with them.
  • The social experience is more important than practical system balance; the interaction between winners and losers is more interesting than mechanical equality.
  • Interactions should be about reaching and touching, more than reading numbers.
  • Things in the world need to make sense.
  • Players are not entitled to success. There should be an achievement mountain, with players able to find their level and strive to be better.


Thus a system which requires players to interact with other players (even by proxy) is superior to a system where players interact with NPCs. A system which requires players to interact provides a reason to be social: even if the outcome of handing industry into player hands only achieves the outcome of getting two introverted industrialists to reach out to each other and form a corporation, set up contracts and rules, and run a successful business together, EVE will be a richer community for that having happened.

To any player that has experienced the world outside hi sec, there are a lot of things in hi sec that just don't make sense: the biggest nonsensical component of hi sec (and to some extent, low sec) is the amount of stuff the NPCs do for us. In sov null, there are no stations unless you put them there yourself. In sov null there is no industry that you don't build for yourself.

This is not about turning hi sec into null sec, nor is it about "forcing" players into null sec. What this is about is getting the game world to make more sense. Every system should affect and be affected by the wider world of the game: if someone wants dominance in a particular sector of industry, they should be able to hunt down their competitors and shoot them (or at least smash up their factories, or fire-bomb their industrial cities). A noob interested in industry should be able to see "X is running a POS, maybe they know what they're doing," and start talking to the POS owner about industry. Maybe the noob will end up joining the corporation and becoming a skilled industrialist themselves?

Five of the principles outlined above are about interaction. There is very little interaction involved, required, or resulting from doing industry in NPC activity lines. Thus, NPC-based industry violates the design principles of the game.

Incidentally, I feel the same way about PI and DUST514: the longer CCP leaves out the ability for us to hire Dust Bunnies to go rough up our PI competitors, the less I care for DUST514.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#73 - 2014-02-09 23:42:14 UTC
Skalle Pande wrote:
As far as I know there is nothing stopping null-sec'ers from setting up industry. So, when it is not usually done, it must be assumed that people living in null usually find other aspects of the game more interesting. That is as it should be. Really, industry, like mining has lots of tedium in it, and if people can't be bothered with that particular kind of tedium that goes with doing industry in null, well and good.


It's easy to make over broad generalisations when you don't know the full story.

Here is how people do industry in hi sec:

  1. Rock up to an Assembly Plant, Logistics Support or other station with available slots
  2. Install your job
  3. Profit!


Here is how people do industry in null sec:

  1. Set up an outpost with a dozen manufacturing lines
  2. Gain access to those lines by begging for the appropriate privileges
  3. Rock up to outpost
  4. Wait for lines to become available
  5. Install your job
  6. Profit


It is very ironic to see you, a hi sec industrialist, accusing null sec of being lazy and wanting to avoid tedium. Nullsec has much more tedium than you would likely be willing to put up with. That is why industry is not done in null sec. There are no NPC assembly plants, and the player-provided assembly lines are very expensive.

The industrialists who are already in null sec would love to be able to anchor a dozen industrial outposts in one system. The problem is there are limits (someone more in the know can correct me, but I think you can have one outpost per system), they are expensive, and they have fewer activity lines than NPC stations.

So honestly, as a hi sec care bear myself, I suggest you take your "I like tedium, obviously nullseccers don't" attitude elsewhere.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#74 - 2014-02-10 01:20:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Pinky Hops
I'd like to point out that for bulk research, relying on highsec station slots is not practical. You need lab slots on demand. Period. People in it for the long haul in highsec are absolutely going to setup a PoS.

Public manufacturing slots exist so that new players or people new to industry can get into T1 manufacturing without huge initial investment either in time or resources. The lab slots are similar but far more restricting -- you can "try out" industry or do super long research jobs semi-efficiently if you are willing to wait for slots. That's about it.

You can't be all that efficient with T2 manufacture while sitting around waiting in line for lab slots. And if you need to research blueprints regularly it's the same deal.

There's tons of open slots in lowsec/nullsec as well, and if anything the lower security you go, the less likely it is that you need a PoS.

As far as I know, it's the players themselves who set the prices for running slots in sov stations. So if the prices are high, blame your alliance/corp/coalition/whatever.

Mara Rinn wrote:
The industrialists who are already in null sec would love to be able to anchor a dozen industrial outposts in one system. The problem is there are limits


The limits exist for balance purposes.

As far as I know, a single outpost can have something like 200 slots if fully upgraded. You're suggesting the ability to upgrade a single system so that it could have over a thousand slots.

They'd have to vastly reduce the maximum amount of slots per outpost to make that balanced, which would actually make it worse for you because then you'd just have to anchor more outposts for the same result - spending more ISK and more time.

No - far better for you that there be a maximum of 1 outpost and have it be balanced around that. Trust me, it's easier for everybody involved. Blink
CCP Quant
C C P
C C P Alliance
#75 - 2014-02-10 01:35:22 UTC
Skalle Pande wrote:
CCP Quant wrote:
Just to keep this thread in sync with reddit

I've made a few forks of the graph on JSFiddle by requests... I see where this is going so I think I'll make due with these for now Big smile

EVE Online destruction 2014 to date

EVE Online ships destroyed 2014 to date

EVE Online ships destroyed in 2013
Just noticed, and it intrigues me a bit: What happened to the 11 Tril ISK blown up in B-R5RB? The chart says 7 Tril now.... why the difference? Exaggerated stats for headline purposes in the first place?




No nothing juicy like that Big smile The thing is that this data is based on killmails. Many of the killmails around the fight, especially titan killmails had 0 value. I added the raw mineral production cost of titans to the mix since they have no market value to put on the killmail, so a lot is missing, I put a disclaimer about this somewhere. A lot of the rare officer mods didn't have a killmail value either. To put things in perspective, with this the largest titan killmail is at ~70B, whereas in reality most of them are above 120B and one was at 220B
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#76 - 2014-02-10 02:30:56 UTC
Pinky Hops wrote:
I'd like to point out that for bulk research, relying on highsec station slots is not practical. You need lab slots on demand. Period. People in it for the long haul in highsec are absolutely going to setup a PoS.

Public manufacturing slots exist so that new players or people new to industry can get into T1 manufacturing without huge initial investment either in time or resources. The lab slots are similar but far more restricting -- you can "try out" industry or do super long research jobs semi-efficiently if you are willing to wait for slots. That's about it.

You can't be all that efficient with T2 manufacture while sitting around waiting in line for lab slots. And if you need to research blueprints regularly it's the same deal.

There's tons of open slots in lowsec/nullsec as well, and if anything the lower security you go, the less likely it is that you need a PoS.

As far as I know, it's the players themselves who set the prices for running slots in sov stations. So if the prices are high, blame your alliance/corp/coalition/whatever.

Mara Rinn wrote:
The industrialists who are already in null sec would love to be able to anchor a dozen industrial outposts in one system. The problem is there are limits


The limits exist for balance purposes.

As far as I know, a single outpost can have something like 200 slots if fully upgraded. You're suggesting the ability to upgrade a single system so that it could have over a thousand slots.

They'd have to vastly reduce the maximum amount of slots per outpost to make that balanced, which would actually make it worse for you because then you'd just have to anchor more outposts for the same result - spending more ISK and more time.

No - far better for you that there be a maximum of 1 outpost and have it be balanced around that. Trust me, it's easier for everybody involved. Blink



Right now, there are high sec systems with more than manufacturing 250 slots. For, effectively, free.

There are a total of 579 systems with manufacturing slots in highsec, all with a minimum of 50, the max is 750 (Nonni)

The total number of highsec manufacturing slots is 62250.

http://pastebin.com/GExxLLDE

My 'perfect world' scenario allows for people to rent out their slots to other players. I know I'd do it. Also the ability to deploy slots in space, without the huge initial investment.



I wrote https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/2013/05/12/renting-player-slots-reworking-industry/ and https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/2013/11/24/retooling-industry-eve-blue-sky/ a while ago. I believe industry, in EVE, requires a rework.

Industry in Nullsec isn't hugely viable right now. I'm going from what other people have said, due to a lack of direct experience.

However, that Other is a devblog, so I'm trusting the numbers.
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/resource-companion-blog#Out

They're a lot better than they used to be. The best you can get is 250, with a fully upgraded Amarr outpost, though that has minimal research slots available. You also stand a chance to lose access to it. Unlike a station in high sec. (also, refinery efficiency /sucks/)

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#77 - 2014-02-10 04:48:06 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
The total number of highsec manufacturing slots is 62250.

http://pastebin.com/GExxLLDE

My 'perfect world' scenario allows for people to rent out their slots to other players. I know I'd do it. Also the ability to deploy slots in space, without the huge initial investment.


Yup, it's generally accepted to be "doing it right" when you use your money to make more money. The best way to make money in a capitalist system is to use your money to buy capital to print more money. Thus you would never use 100% of the capacity of a POS yourself if you could avoid doing so. You would lease out as much of the POS as required to cover costs, then use the remainder for your own purposes. Along with the choice of how many of your activity lines to lease out, you'd be monitoring prices. In an ideal world you'd have NPC slots as a "ceiling" price and fuel costs as a "floor".

Contrary to Steve's opinion earlier, I see the requirement to anchor a POS to a moon to be essential. After all if there was no territory to fight over, there would be no conflict. If there is limited real estate upon which to erect your POS, you'll actually consider declaring war in order to evict the current occupants from your chosen location.

Sure, after a while the "good" spots would be occupied by the industrialists with the biggest PvP forces at their beck and call.

The budding industrialist will have access to slots. There will be no more waiting times. Heck, I know POS managers who regard ME/PE slots as wastage, since they only use their POSes for invention. All they need is copy & invention slots.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Skalle Pande
Teknisk Forlag
#78 - 2014-02-10 05:27:07 UTC

Right. Thanks for sober, thorough and sensible answers. And I really do apologize if I was a tad fresh here - you are right, I really don't know anything about null-sec other than what I gather from these forums. I did not, however, use the word "lazy" about people living in null, and I certainly don't think that the population in null, as a whole, are lazy. The recent battle proves that - a lot of people have put a huge effort into building all those ships, and a lot of people spent a huge amount of time demolishing them. That is the opposite of laziness, and I am awestruck that so many can commit so much to this game. I am the lazy one here, that much is true. Even if I spend too much time in EVE as it is. And I like to make my killings in the market, the spaceships are just tools for that. Even if I am not very good at it, but I strive to improve, as I ought to.

However, there are a number of points on which we don't see things the same way, obviously. First and foremost - we all play this game for fun, and we only keep playing as long as we still find it sufficiently interesting and worthwhile to spend RL time and money doing so. "Players are not entitled to success" - agreed, but if the lack of success gets permanent and gets too frustrating to a player, he will quit eventually. That is bad for RL business.The task given to CCP developers is and must be to make a game that retains its appeal to as broad a player base as possible for as long as possible, and at the same time is attractive and unique to new players. Consequently, it makes sense for CCP to cater to new players, and to make room for players like me, unless that will end up turning more committed players like you off. All the "new content", "rebalancing" and general tweaking is done for that RL purpose. Do we agree on that?

Second,
Mara Rinn wrote:
If hi sec industrialists needed to set up their own infrastructure — just like people in low- and null-sec — there would be more opportunity for ganking and actual PvP. Steve and others like him (I dare to place myself in the same group as Steve) simply want a fair game: why should industrialists have an invulnerable infrastructure while the people flying spaceships are vulnerable any time they're in space?
Now come on, EVE is anything but a "fair game" - there is nothing "fair" about ganking, scamming, pirating or whatever. Why should pirates always have warp scramblers and bigger guns than mining barges? What we have is a game with varying levels of unfairness and challenge, which by design is lopsided every which way, so that as many players as possible can find a niche for themselves. Null sec industrialists can do moon mining - does it make sense to you that moons suddenly gets made out of stuff once the sec level falls below a certain threshold?
Quote:
What this is about is getting the game world to make more sense.

To me, the fact that there are regions where empires keep a certain amount of law and order, and where carebears and noobs can buy what they need and go about their business (with only the occasional mugging) makes far more sense than moons knowing whether they are in hi sec or low sec systems. But I recognize the reason for the game being designed that way, and it is fine by me.

Third,
Quote:
There is very little interaction involved, required, or resulting from doing industry in NPC activity lines. Thus, NPC-based industry violates the design principles of the game.
(...)
Thus a system which requires players to interact with other players (even by proxy) is superior to a system where players interact with NPCs. A system which requires players to interact provides a reason to be social: even if the outcome of handing industry into player hands only achieves the outcome of getting two introverted industrialists to reach out to each other and form a corporation, set up contracts and rules, and run a successful business together, EVE will be a richer community for that having happened.
I agree with the latter, but not with the former - the first of the design principles is about not making things unnecessarily complicated, and requiring players to interact would make things much more complicated, especially to noobs. Encouraging players to interact is a different matter, I am all for that. There certainly are benefits of making friends and forming communities even in hi-sec (it is hard to run a POS all by yourself, but access to a POS will make your research so much easier, it is more efficient to mine when someone is boosting you, etc.). But it takes time, and some, like me, are slow learners. The first lessons learned in EVE usually are 1) If people get the opportunity they will shoot you and pod you; 2) If people get the opportunity they will cheat you and steal your stuff and 3) There is no police and nothing you can do about it, except keep your distance, be wary. To find out that most players actually are decent people, mostly, somewhat, you have to overcome those initial lessons first. And you need time and safety to find the people you like to work with and like to trust. Besides, when you start out playing Eve, you do not necessarily want to start as junior member of somebody else's setup - you want to fly your own ship and build you own sand castle. In time, you will learn that cooperation furthers that.

Quote:
In sov null, there are no stations unless you put them there yourself. In sov null there is no industry that you don't build for yourself.
Right. Things are much more complicated in null. Hands down. And if there are things industrial that need tweaking with outposts, by all means tweak them. But why do you want to change hi sec if the problems are in null? (btw, couldn't you set up POS'ses to make more slots? Is that impossible in null? I honestly don't know). Right now, I fill a niche and contribute to the game - why will you take that away?
Skalle Pande
Teknisk Forlag
#79 - 2014-02-10 05:35:09 UTC
CCP Quant wrote:
No nothing juicy like that Big smile The thing is that this data is based on killmails. Many of the killmails around the fight, especially titan killmails had 0 value. I added the raw mineral production cost of titans to the mix since they have no market value to put on the killmail, so a lot is missing, I put a disclaimer about this somewhere. A lot of the rare officer mods didn't have a killmail value either. To put things in perspective, with this the largest titan killmail is at ~70B, whereas in reality most of them are above 120B and one was at 220B

Thanks. Makes sense. And I found the disclaimer, sry for the sceptical tone.

That must mean that the B-R5RB blob should have been even bigger, relative to the rest. Amazing.
Skalle Pande
Teknisk Forlag
#80 - 2014-02-10 06:03:59 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
It should be noted that I'm a highsec industrialist. That's how I make my ISK.

I did not know that - sorry.

Actually, I find that somewhat alarming. I thought your point was to change the balance between industry in hisec and null. But now it seems to me that what you really are aiming at is changing the balance within highsec.

As things are now in hisec, there are plenty of manufacturing slots available almost for free, but other kinds of slots have loooong queues - often several months. This eventually translates into a strong incentive for industrialists-in-spe to set up a POS of their own, and this is a great motor for creating cooperation. Which is good.

If all manufacturing slots were owned by player corps - old, rich, strong player corps - it would be very, very difficult for new players to set up shop independently. They would have to pay, and rates would be non-negotiable and possibly quite steep, and they would have no chance of competing, since they would be subsidizing the competition. They would never get to the point where they were able to set up a POS, and even if they did, they would probably be wardecced instantly and have their POS demolished. That is the way of monopolies. I am definitely against.

Besides, you would have to trust your blueprints, your materials and your products to someone you don't know - would you do that yourself, as a new player? There would have to be very strong game mechanic guarantees that once you pay the fee and submit your job, your stuff is safe and you cannot be shut out from the facility etc. Trusting strangers is generally risky in this little sandbox, is it not?