These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

High sec Mission runners just got completely screwed by CCP

First post First post
Author
Salvos Rhoska
#61 - 2014-03-20 19:43:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Ultimately, the null sec cartels are working towards turning high sec into a wasteland. A lot of new players in high sec are going to be critically hurt by this latest attack, and some will quit the game. But the cartels know that some percentage will actually move to null sec to become serfs, and increase the income of the cartel leadership. It does not matter how much it hurts the overall Eve subscription base, their personal incomes will rise. That is why they made these changes.


I dont know enough to be able to predict how the market will react when CFC starts pulling resources out of the market for direct transportation and implementation in null projects.

It depends entirely, imo, on what % of high-sec resource harvesting is actually done by alts of these null-sec entities.
Those materials will no longer be passed through various "fences" and hurdles, or the market, in order to convert them to transportable materials.

Probably a rise in demand as null kicks into full production mode to take advantage of the now unimpaired transportation of materials due to compression. I expect not only will they funnel all their alts materials right out of high-sec to null, but also use the no doubt enormous ISK base they have been sitting on and unable to spend to constantly buy up and move material off the market and out there.

TLDR: I think its good for purely high-sec entities. The market will thrive on this. Miners will get fabulously rich. Multiboxers will expand their fleets from 6 to 12. Worst case scenario (but unlikely) is that some system in null becomes such a powerful resource tradehub, that it starts to rival high-sec hubs. Barring that, this just means more business for high-sec entities to sell their stuff to null-sec.

But I think its very bad for non-CFC null-sec entities, as CFC kicks into full production/growth mode.

But what do I know. I like the streamlining and trimming of loose ends this change involves. The rest is meta, and up to the players. If CFC is in a position to capitalise on this, that is their prerogative.

The one part I don't get though, is why nerf non-ore/ice reprocessing. If anything, and as has been indicated by many others, the reprocessed loot portion of ISK income in missioning and even ratting/anomaly running is quite small. Why nerf it further? I dont buy the "this will create a new profession of **** module reprocessors for an even smaller return". Makes no sense.
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#62 - 2014-03-20 19:44:16 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Batelle wrote:
holy hell give it a rest.

Why? He's right for the most part… Name one change in the last year that has been aimed at improving gameplay in high-sec? It certainly wasn't any of the mobile units, because these have actually become gank magnets for mission-runners… It definitely wasn't high-sec POCOs, because these basically nerfed PI income while lining the pockets of null alliances… I'm still waiting for an expansion that actually focus on and improves gameplay in high-sec.


gee i dunno, how about marauders?
exploration changes
deployables (yes the MTU and the MD are great, i use them both extensively in hisec, dunno what your issue is)
ore/ice distribution changes
a huge amount of ship rebalancing, making many t1 battleships viable and rebalancing hacs etc.
new ships
lots of new soe lvl 4's in hisec
changes to factory manager roles and personal hangar array
warp speed changes
graphics changes

This is just off the top of my head.

Or are you saying that he's right in that you also think that CCP Fozzie and apparently also Ytterbium are is colluding with the Mittani to make the lives of hiseccers miserable?

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#63 - 2014-03-20 19:47:15 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


The one part I don't get though, is why nerf non-ore/ice reprocessing. If anything, and as has been indicated by many others, the reprocessed loot portion of ISK income in missioning and even ratting/anomaly running is quite small. Why nerf it further? I dont buy the "this will create a new profession of **** module reprocessors for an even smaller return". Makes no sense.


A little buff to miners.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#64 - 2014-03-20 19:47:30 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Also, our POCO prices are cheaper than the NPC prices were. Your welcome.

Yes, Goons are the greatest gift to high-sec… Roll


We just got miners another little buff to their income and a reason for them to spread to the other 75% of EVE. Your welcome.


thank you bob... you guys are awesome!

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Xeronikus
MARE Technology Department
#65 - 2014-03-20 19:47:32 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Xeronikus wrote:
Also some people don't like the notion of being treated like cattle in some big ass alliance.

It's why null is a wasteland.


Null could house a lot more players. Easily. But unless you are in a big alliance, you won't gain good foothold in null. Being in a big alliance = you are cattle to them (not even blaming them, the game system forces this at the moment for efficiency reasons).

There's little tactic to null. Mostly just "BRING MOAR NUMBAHS". If your 100 active player alliance is in the way or could even remotely pose a future risk, you'll just be erased from null. End of story. Whatever happened to CCPs plan to inprove the nullsec experience (in terms of profit/risk ratio) for small groups of people? I never saw development in this area. That was several years ago.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#66 - 2014-03-20 19:48:36 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Xeronikus wrote:
Also some people don't like the notion of being treated like cattle in some big ass alliance.

It's why null is a wasteland.


yes that is why when i put on the rats killed in 24 hour filter on the map it shows nothing killed in 0.0

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#67 - 2014-03-20 19:49:36 UTC
Xeronikus wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Xeronikus wrote:
Also some people don't like the notion of being treated like cattle in some big ass alliance.

It's why null is a wasteland.


Null could house a lot more players. Easily. But unless you are in a big alliance, you won't gain good foothold in null. Being in a big alliance = you are cattle to them (not even blaming them, the game system forces this at the moment for efficiency reasons).

There's little tactic to null. Mostly just "BRING MOAR NUMBAHS". If your 100 active player alliance is in the way or could even remotely pose a future risk, you'll just be erased from null. End of story. Whatever happened to CCPs plan to inprove the nullsec experience (in terms of profit/risk ratio) for small groups of people? I never saw development in this area. That was several years ago.



i dunno about you but when my small corp is active we typically ninja it in stain... no need for any foothold

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#68 - 2014-03-20 19:49:49 UTC
Xeronikus wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Xeronikus wrote:
Also some people don't like the notion of being treated like cattle in some big ass alliance.

It's why null is a wasteland.


Null could house a lot more players. Easily. But unless you are in a big alliance, you won't gain good foothold in null. Being in a big alliance = you are cattle to them (not even blaming them, the game system forces this at the moment for efficiency reasons).

There's little tactic to null. Mostly just "BRING MOAR NUMBAHS". If your 100 active player alliance is in the way or could even remotely pose a future risk, you'll just be erased from null. End of story. Whatever happened to CCPs plan to inprove the nullsec experience (in terms of profit/risk ratio) for small groups of people? I never saw development in this area. That was several years ago.


CCP need to make null worth fighting for first.
Xeronikus
MARE Technology Department
#69 - 2014-03-20 19:55:16 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

CCP need to make null worth fighting for first.


I don't know but it appears to me you guys are fighting for your space in null quite extensively. Or are you telling me you're just doing it out of pity for the poor null space and actually need to run high-sec missions to pay for your expenses in null?
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#70 - 2014-03-20 19:57:17 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
The one part I don't get though, is why nerf non-ore/ice reprocessing. If anything, and as has been indicated by many others, the reprocessed loot portion of ISK income in missioning and even ratting/anomaly running is quite small. Why nerf it further? I dont buy the "this will create a new profession of **** module reprocessors for an even smaller return". Makes no sense.


Well then you're looking at it from the wrong angle and missing the big picture as a result. The point is that despite being part of the game for a long time, perfect or near perfect reprocessing on finished goods back into raw materials causes unusual phenomena in the economy, and is unrealistic or unnatural. Module compression is a symptom. Funky module sizes and variations by meta were an attempt to treat this symptom. Another symptom is the behavior of buying overproduced stock of the market to immediately scrap it the moment it drops a few % below mineral cost. If you lower reprocessing efficiency, then supplied modules will have their price get depressed as is natural, rather than having high-efficiency reprocessing serve as a relatively high ceiling on the value of modules.

The fact that this reduces income of loot is a byproduct, and its not entirely a negative one. Neither is it particularly important. Its up to players for their behavior to change to reflect changing reality. I see this as a net positive.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#71 - 2014-03-20 20:03:40 UTC
Xeronikus wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

CCP need to make null worth fighting for first.


I don't know but it appears to me you guys are fighting for your space in null quite extensively. Or are you telling me you're just doing it out of pity for the poor null space and actually need to run high-sec missions to pay for your expenses in null?


nah they fight cuss they are bored... not because the machanics make it fun... or are you telling me gringing 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 worth of structure HP is fun to you.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Arsine Mayhem
Doomheim
#72 - 2014-03-20 20:04:28 UTC
Looting is work, I'm playing a game.

Anyone ever bother to post a link to this dev blog?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#73 - 2014-03-20 20:05:56 UTC
Xeronikus wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

CCP need to make null worth fighting for first.


I don't know but it appears to me you guys are fighting for your space in null quite extensively. Or are you telling me you're just doing it out of pity for the poor null space and actually need to run high-sec missions to pay for your expenses in null?


We run high sec missions because they pay better.

We also refine in high sec currently because its better there, which means its also better to mine there.

Industry? Its cheaper to buy from jita and ship it out than build in null.

Is it any wonder we don't see people trying to take our empty space?
Salvos Rhoska
#74 - 2014-03-20 20:08:54 UTC
Batelle wrote:
[If you lower reprocessing efficiency, then supplied modules will have their price get depressed as is natural, rather than having high-efficiency reprocessing serve as a relatively high ceiling on the value of modules.

But this drops the value of those items twice. Not only will they not be worth picking up for reprocessing, they will also not be worthwhile to pick up for selling directly. They become trash that never even makes it to market, but remains on wrecks.

Furthermore as less of these make it to market, either as modules or reprocessed minerals, that raises the profits of miners directly as the now only suppliers of minerals to the market.

Batelle wrote:
The fact that this reduces income of loot is a byproduct, and its not entirely a negative one. Neither is it particularly important. Its up to players for their behavior to change to reflect changing reality. I see this as a net positive.


It is a negative one. Its significance has yet to be gauged depending on how much loot will instead be left in space rather than brought into market to be sold as modules or reprocessed minerals.

Yes, it is up to players up to adapt to changing reality. But this is not a reality yet, and all these changes are an artificial change to that environment, not one that is evolved from or a result of player actions.

I understand the streamlining of ore units necessary for refining. I understand the need to make compression better so as to avoid the contrived "build modules, ship em, reprocess em" dance. I understand the need to stratify station refinement %.

I dont understand the need to potentially completely remove "trash" modules from being brought to market or reprocessed.
Iirc somewhere in the blog it tries to sell this as "an incentive for high-sec players to take on the role of reprocessors", but this will not happen with modules, because the efficiency has been nerfed into the ground on modules that already had very little value to begin with, either in function or as their component minerals.
Xeronikus
MARE Technology Department
#75 - 2014-03-20 20:10:12 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Is it any wonder we don't see people trying to take our empty space?


No, no one tries because it has been done and at best lasted a few weeks before being kicked out by the big guys. If it's so worthless, why bother defending your (sometimes large) unused areas?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#76 - 2014-03-20 20:24:42 UTC
Xeronikus wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

Is it any wonder we don't see people trying to take our empty space?


No, no one tries because it has been done and at best lasted a few weeks before being kicked out by the big guys. If it's so worthless, why bother defending your (sometimes large) unused areas?


We don't want the other guy to have it. Its bufferzone.
Xeronikus
MARE Technology Department
#77 - 2014-03-20 20:34:58 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Xeronikus wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

Is it any wonder we don't see people trying to take our empty space?


No, no one tries because it has been done and at best lasted a few weeks before being kicked out by the big guys. If it's so worthless, why bother defending your (sometimes large) unused areas?


We don't want the other guy to have it. Its bufferzone.



Root of the problem why no one wants to null. Alliance blob bombs you out as soon as you settle. That's where something has to be done. You have to be able to get your ass in null and stay there without blocking your gameplay 90% of the time by huge fleets near you. This is what CCP wanted to do quite a long time ago already. They never did. Flying around for hours in null fleeing from fights you can't win (you know, the bring more numbers thing) to be able to do half of one anomaly is neither fun nor profitable. I don't have a solution to this problem. I also don't blame you guys for doing what you do (hell, who wouldn't use their power to preserve and reinforce their position). But until something is done about the core problem with null space, me and many other players will stay the hell away.

If hi-sec at some point get so nerfed that you can't do **** in one lifetime, I'd rather stop playing eve than being forced into null space as it is now.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#78 - 2014-03-20 20:38:54 UTC
Xeronikus wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Xeronikus wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

Is it any wonder we don't see people trying to take our empty space?


No, no one tries because it has been done and at best lasted a few weeks before being kicked out by the big guys. If it's so worthless, why bother defending your (sometimes large) unused areas?


We don't want the other guy to have it. Its bufferzone.



Root of the problem why no one wants to null. Alliance blob bombs you out as soon as you settle. That's where something has to be done. You have to be able to get your ass in null and stay there without blocking your gameplay 90% of the time by huge fleets near you. This is what CCP wanted to do quite a long time ago already. They never did. Flying around for hours in null fleeing from fights you can't win (you know, the bring more numbers thing) to be able to do half of one anomaly is neither fun nor profitable. I don't have a solution to this problem. I also don't blame you guys for doing what you do (hell, who wouldn't use their power to preserve and reinforce their position). But until something is done about the core problem with null space, me and many other players will stay the hell away.

If hi-sec at some point get so nerfed that you can't do **** in one lifetime, I'd rather stop playing eve than being forced into null space as it is now.


Just to point out, Chribba held sov solo for a rather long time.
Xeronikus
MARE Technology Department
#79 - 2014-03-20 20:41:43 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Just to point out, Chribba held sov solo for a rather long time.


Well, this solves all the issues I pointed out for all the other 99.X% of the players who are interested in null space but dislike the current conditions I mentioned earlier.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#80 - 2014-03-20 20:43:17 UTC
Xeronikus wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

Just to point out, Chribba held sov solo for a rather long time.


Well, this solves all the issues I pointed out for all the other 99.X% of the players who are interested in null space but dislike the current conditions I mentioned earlier.


Nobody likes the current sov setup.

But it is better than what we had before.