These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

No More High Sec Manufacturing?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kingnuts
The Sadistic Clowns
#121 - 2014-04-16 11:48:47 UTC
The changes look good but the one thing that may cause a possible issue is the larger alliances simply taking over all the moons that are in convenient locations. Without any standings requirements it will now be feasible for any large alliance to dominate the real estate market and keep any smaller groups out. There is a certain attraction to that within the eve context but there is also some attraction to differentiating the degree of control large power blocs can have in the different areas of space. The standings requirement acted as something of a check on large groups becoming highsec slum landlords/grief landlords and with this gone we can expect all dedicated industry corps to have to become subservient to large PvP groups if they want to be allowed to set up facilities anywhere near a hub.

I would like to see the standings requirements reduced a great deal but removing them completely will make the real estate market rather one dimensional.
Abyss Azizora
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#122 - 2014-04-16 12:04:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Abyss Azizora
Kingnuts wrote:
The changes look good but the one thing that may cause a possible issue is the larger alliances simply taking over all the moons that are in convenient locations. Without any standings requirements it will now be feasible for any large alliance to dominate the real estate market and keep any smaller groups out. There is a certain attraction to that within the eve context but there is also some attraction to differentiating the degree of control large power blocs can have in the different areas of space. The standings requirement acted as something of a check on large groups becoming highsec slum landlords/grief landlords and with this gone we can expect all dedicated industry corps to have to become subservient to large PvP groups if they want to be allowed to set up facilities anywhere near a hub.

I would like to see the standings requirements reduced a great deal but removing them completely will make the real estate market rather one dimensional.


Correct me if I'm wrong here, but from what I read in the devblog

"Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements (minus some protected solar systems, like Jita or new player starting systems of course)."

Makes it sound like you will be able to anchor them "ANYWHERE" as in not just at moons, so it'd be like setting up a mobile HQ, as many as you want. If thats the case it won't be an issue, but if this dev just failed in his comprehesion of the word "anywhere" then you have a valid point.
Kingnuts
The Sadistic Clowns
#123 - 2014-04-16 12:08:10 UTC
Abyss Azizora wrote:
Kingnuts wrote:
The changes look good but the one thing that may cause a possible issue is the larger alliances simply taking over all the moons that are in convenient locations. Without any standings requirements it will now be feasible for any large alliance to dominate the real estate market and keep any smaller groups out. There is a certain attraction to that within the eve context but there is also some attraction to differentiating the degree of control large power blocs can have in the different areas of space. The standings requirement acted as something of a check on large groups becoming highsec slum landlords/grief landlords and with this gone we can expect all dedicated industry corps to have to become subservient to large PvP groups if they want to be allowed to set up facilities anywhere near a hub.

I would like to see the standings requirements reduced a great deal but removing them completely will make the real estate market rather one dimensional.


Correct me if I'm wrong here, but from what I read in the devblog

"Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements (minus some protected solar systems, like Jita or new player starting systems of course)."

Makes it sound like you will be able to anchor them "ANYWHERE" as in not just at moons, so it'd be like setting up a mobile HQ, as many as you want. If thats the case it won't be an issue, but if this dev just failed in his comprehesion of the word "anywhere" then you have a valid point.


I'm pretty sure the 'anywhere' was in contrast to the current restricted placement based on standings. If they had meant POSes can now be anchored in places other than moons then I strongly suspect they would have flagged that more prominently.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#124 - 2014-04-16 12:18:16 UTC
Kingnuts wrote:
Abyss Azizora wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but from what I read in the devblog

"Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements (minus some protected solar systems, like Jita or new player starting systems of course)."

Makes it sound like you will be able to anchor them "ANYWHERE" as in not just at moons, so it'd be like setting up a mobile HQ, as many as you want. If thats the case it won't be an issue, but if this dev just failed in his comprehesion of the word "anywhere" then you have a valid point.

I'm pretty sure the 'anywhere' was in contrast to the current restricted placement based on standings. If they had meant POSes can now be anchored in places other than moons then I strongly suspect they would have flagged that more prominently.

Yes.

They mean “anywhere” as in “anywhere from 0.45–1.00 sec level regardless of corp standings” as opposed to just the current 0.45–0.75 depending on corp standings — they're still moon-based stuctures. We just got 13,000 new highsec moons.
Slade Trillgon
Brutor Force Federated
#125 - 2014-04-16 12:23:31 UTC
Thibault Etienne wrote:
OK heres perspective.
I'm scottish but ill use this exapmple. No offence meant to people in my examples. I know this eve crowd just love to jump on someone.

High sec USA
Low sec Middle East
Null Sec Somalia and the Africas

If I'm making stuff to sell in USA I'd make it in the USA where its meant to be safer for production.
You think I'll fly from the states make stuff in the Middle East where its far less civilised then fly back to the USA fighting off gate camps and pirates to sell it.

Come on CCP. I hope you really aint thinking of making hi sec manufacturing less efficient. It makes no sense.


Actually that exact scenario has been happening in the US for a decade or more. The cost of manufacturing got so high due to labor costs that the owners of many companies have either shipped their produ tion lines to Asia or have completely sold their company to a foriegn investor.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#126 - 2014-04-16 13:13:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Gully Alex Foyle
Kingnuts wrote:
The changes look good but the one thing that may cause a possible issue is the larger alliances simply taking over all the moons that are in convenient locations. Without any standings requirements it will now be feasible for any large alliance to dominate the real estate market and keep any smaller groups out. There is a certain attraction to that within the eve context but there is also some attraction to differentiating the degree of control large power blocs can have in the different areas of space. The standings requirement acted as something of a check on large groups becoming highsec slum landlords/grief landlords and with this gone we can expect all dedicated industry corps to have to become subservient to large PvP groups if they want to be allowed to set up facilities anywhere near a hub.

I would like to see the standings requirements reduced a great deal but removing them completely will make the real estate market rather one dimensional.
I don't understand your logic there.

How exactly did the standing requirement prevent any large alliance from creating Corps with 1 guy having 7+ faction standing and all other members (industry alts for example) having no faction standing? Thus anchoring and utilizing as many highsec POSs as they wished?

EDIT: if anything, removing standings requirement will make it trivial for anyone and their mum to anchor a POS in highsec. Perhaps it's a good time for CCP to consider facilitating the removal or destruction of offlined towers, or possibly even changing the '1 POS/moon' limit to '1 ONLINED POS/moon' so you can 'use' a moon if you're willing to pay the fuel costs while the other guy is just 'squatting' with an offlined tower. If not, we'll just blow 'em up obviously Big smile

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Zeera Tomb-Raider
Vega Farscape
#127 - 2014-04-16 13:16:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Zeera Tomb-Raider
Medalyn Isis wrote:
After reading the Dev Blog, just considering what will this actually mean, and I am thinking perhaps this is partly to try and make high sec manufacturing extremely uneconomical. It all depends on what CCP will set for the cost and how much it increases based upon the number of people wanting to use the station. Any chance you can give us the formula CCP as right now the repercussion are a little hazy?

So, is this now going to make high sec manufacturing now not so desirable? After all, this could be a big buff to low sec if all industrialists will have to relocate out there to get good a decent profit margin.

Also - "Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements"

This is going to be interesting.

Devblog - Building Better Worlds

agre with you and more-now i can save travling time for reschers jops lol mowing bpo-copys in frigs, but in sted i have to haule all i need for manufactoring around to different systems to make a margine proffit so wher did that saved time go mention in dev blogg.make installing manufactoring jobs cost more and lett corp standings reduce cost just as refining dos.if i have to keep mowing aroun as a indy pilot to manufactoring it will be to mutch work.doing indi bekos i like it.but with change to com i rater stop doing it and unsub som acconts.only need 1 accont for factional warfare and making a lott more monny per houer doing that.
Kingnuts
The Sadistic Clowns
#128 - 2014-04-16 13:35:36 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Kingnuts wrote:
The changes look good but the one thing that may cause a possible issue is the larger alliances simply taking over all the moons that are in convenient locations. Without any standings requirements it will now be feasible for any large alliance to dominate the real estate market and keep any smaller groups out. There is a certain attraction to that within the eve context but there is also some attraction to differentiating the degree of control large power blocs can have in the different areas of space. The standings requirement acted as something of a check on large groups becoming highsec slum landlords/grief landlords and with this gone we can expect all dedicated industry corps to have to become subservient to large PvP groups if they want to be allowed to set up facilities anywhere near a hub.

I would like to see the standings requirements reduced a great deal but removing them completely will make the real estate market rather one dimensional.
I don't understand your logic there.

How exactly did the standing requirement prevent any large alliance from creating Corps with 1 guy having 7+ faction standing and all other members (industry alts for example) having no faction standing? Thus anchoring and utilizing as many highsec POSs as they wished?


You make a very good point. I didn't take into account the possible use of alt corps but now, reflecting on it, I'm slightly amazed that the griefing potential of such a set-up hasn't been exploited yet.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#129 - 2014-04-16 13:42:35 UTC
Kingnuts wrote:
You make a very good point. I didn't take into account the possible use of alt corps but now, reflecting on it, I'm slightly amazed that the griefing potential of such a set-up hasn't been exploited yet.
Maybe the large alliances aren't so evil after all? Big smile

Also it probably makes more sense to them to allow highsec industrialists to compete among eachother and maximize manufacturing efficiency, so they can buy cheap stuff with their huge moongoo profits (+ sell the mongoo products to said highsec industrialists).

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Baneken
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
#130 - 2014-04-16 14:32:26 UTC
It's because someone actually has to grind those standing to 8.0 first and the it still has to be a one man corp that cannot transfer the ownership of a POS but with the new system you can skip the one man corp and standings grind from the equation.

However killing a POS to be able to replace a POS isn't really that profitable since a POS needs fuel to run unlike PoCo's and nobody is so desperate on having a high sec POS in any particular moon that they would pay up to keep it there.
Fuelling & usage requirements also keep alliances from killing all POSes in sight and replacing them for an extortion racket.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#131 - 2014-04-16 15:10:14 UTC
Baneken wrote:
It's because someone actually has to grind those standing to 8.0 first and the it still has to be a one man corp that cannot transfer the ownership of a POS but with the new system you can skip the one man corp and standings grind from the equation.

However killing a POS to be able to replace a POS isn't really that profitable since a POS needs fuel to run unlike PoCo's and nobody is so desperate on having a high sec POS in any particular moon that they would pay up to keep it there.
Fuelling & usage requirements also keep alliances from killing all POSes in sight and replacing them for an extortion racket.

I've just started researching POSs, but I understand you don't need to online (fuel) a POS to occupy a moon and ask for money to allow someone else to use the moon. You just need to anchor a small tower and leave it offline. Even without stront, in the event of a wardec you'd still have 24 hours to take appropriate action to 'enforce' your occupation of the moon.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#132 - 2014-04-16 15:18:10 UTC
Caviar Liberta wrote:
Medalyn Isis wrote:
After reading the Dev Blog, just considering what will this actually mean, and I am thinking perhaps this is partly to try and make high sec manufacturing extremely uneconomical. It all depends on what CCP will set for the cost and how much it increases based upon the number of people wanting to use the station. Any chance you can give us the formula CCP as right now the repercussion are a little hazy?

So, is this now going to make high sec manufacturing now not so desirable? After all, this could be a big buff to low sec if all industrialists will have to relocate out there to get good a decent profit margin.

Also - "Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements"

This is going to be interesting.


Link said blog please.

That information is also cleverly hidden behind the big "DEV BLOGS" button at the top of every page on the forums. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#133 - 2014-04-16 15:22:45 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Caviar Liberta wrote:
Medalyn Isis wrote:
After reading the Dev Blog, just considering what will this actually mean, and I am thinking perhaps this is partly to try and make high sec manufacturing extremely uneconomical. It all depends on what CCP will set for the cost and how much it increases based upon the number of people wanting to use the station. Any chance you can give us the formula CCP as right now the repercussion are a little hazy?

So, is this now going to make high sec manufacturing now not so desirable? After all, this could be a big buff to low sec if all industrialists will have to relocate out there to get good a decent profit margin.

Also - "Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements"

This is going to be interesting.


Link said blog please.

That information is also cleverly hidden behind the big "DEV BLOGS" button at the top of every page on the forums. Smile


CCPs devious plan to hide information in plain sight is working!
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#134 - 2014-04-16 15:25:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Slade Trillgon wrote:
Thibault Etienne wrote:
OK heres perspective.
I'm scottish but ill use this exapmple. No offence meant to people in my examples. I know this eve crowd just love to jump on someone.

High sec USA
Low sec Middle East
Null Sec Somalia and the Africas

If I'm making stuff to sell in USA I'd make it in the USA where its meant to be safer for production.
You think I'll fly from the states make stuff in the Middle East where its far less civilised then fly back to the USA fighting off gate camps and pirates to sell it.

Come on CCP. I hope you really aint thinking of making hi sec manufacturing less efficient. It makes no sense.


Actually that exact scenario has been happening in the US for a decade or more. The cost of manufacturing got so high due to labor costs that the owners of many companies have either shipped their produ tion lines to Asia or have completely sold their company to a foriegn investor.

Precisely.

Think about where Nike makes their shoes, and why.

On another note, CCP has already stated that they will be taking a look at the mechanics involved in getting rid of abandoned POS's... so we'll see what (if anything) comes from that.

And abandoned POS's are really the only issue in the "take over all high sec moons" hyperbole. Primarily because the only other option is to maintain the thousands of POS's necessary to do this, and if there is one thing most null sec entities hate doing, it's maintaining POS's.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Zeera Tomb-Raider
Vega Farscape
#135 - 2014-04-16 15:34:46 UTC
Medalyn Isis wrote:
After reading the Dev Blog, just considering what will this actually mean, and I am thinking perhaps this is partly to try and make high sec manufacturing extremely uneconomical. It all depends on what CCP will set for the cost and how much it increases based upon the number of people wanting to use the station. Any chance you can give us the formula CCP as right now the repercussion are a little hazy?

So, is this now going to make high sec manufacturing now not so desirable? After all, this could be a big buff to low sec if all industrialists will have to relocate out there to get good a decent profit margin.

Also - "Allow Starbases to be anchored anywhere in high-security space and without standing requirements"

This is going to be interesting.

Devblog - Building Better Worlds

Missions will be pointless to do nowe LP was just a nice bonus for working on standings,do incursions in sted you make 70-100m houer and can just bay any faction stuff you want on marked,working on standings just to gain better refining yeld when they nowe nerf that to.this risk vs reward thing are retarted in this game its safer erning 100m houer doing incursion than it is to solo mine in a 0.5 sec system.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#136 - 2014-04-16 15:39:04 UTC
My bet is that major nullsec alliance leadership is mainly interested in maintaining ther Internet Spaceship power - 'cause its gratifying.

Power means:

1) ISK
2) Warm bodies

To attract and retain warm bodies you have to make sure they're having fun.


So... since controlling ALL highsec moons is neither profitable nor fun I doubt major alliances are interested.

Controlling every moon within a few jumps of Jita may be worthwhile, though Twisted

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#137 - 2014-04-16 15:43:10 UTC
Zeera Tomb-Raider wrote:
Missions will be pointless to do nowe LP was just a nice bonus for working on standings
Yeah, it could make sense for CCP to still retain some advantage regarding faction standings. For example a significant discount in the new NPC station manufacturing/research fees formula.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Josef Djugashvilis
#138 - 2014-04-16 15:51:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Josef Djugashvilis
La Nariz wrote:
Highsec is now reaping what it had sowed.


Good man!

Personally, I blame hi-sec for everything that is wrong in Eve Online, even the stuff it is not at fault for.

This is not a signature.
DaReaper
Net 7
Cannon.Fodder
#139 - 2014-04-16 16:06:38 UTC
TL;DR

To the op, how is this going to kill HS manufacturing? As it stands right now, if you want to say build in jita you have to jump into a que and wait a while to build stuff. Or you move your bp's to another area with more available slots, and then you build and ship it to jita. In this aspect nothing really changes, except, you pay more to build right now in places where all the slots would normally be taken. But, if you take into account the time and price as you searched for a new area to build your item, plus ship it to jita, it might be worth it for you to lose some profit and build it no. Otherwise you do what you do now, move your bpc to another station and build.

The people complaining about Towers. I don't get what the issue is, as I said in another thread about this, if you are smart, you will have time to grab your bp's you have in your tower and get them out of harms way.

But as they are now doing no slots, for most places, you might not even need the HS research tower anymore in the first place. If that's the case them you just store bpc's in yoru tower to build... just like normal. I really don't understand why people see this as a nerf.

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.
ashley Eoner
#140 - 2014-04-16 16:25:11 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Slade Trillgon wrote:
Thibault Etienne wrote:
OK heres perspective.
I'm scottish but ill use this exapmple. No offence meant to people in my examples. I know this eve crowd just love to jump on someone.

High sec USA
Low sec Middle East
Null Sec Somalia and the Africas

If I'm making stuff to sell in USA I'd make it in the USA where its meant to be safer for production.
You think I'll fly from the states make stuff in the Middle East where its far less civilised then fly back to the USA fighting off gate camps and pirates to sell it.

Come on CCP. I hope you really aint thinking of making hi sec manufacturing less efficient. It makes no sense.


Actually that exact scenario has been happening in the US for a decade or more. The cost of manufacturing got so high due to labor costs that the owners of many companies have either shipped their produ tion lines to Asia or have completely sold their company to a foriegn investor.

Bullshit. Labor costs are marginal here as evidenced by google producing phones here and even Apple moving some production back to the states. Apple's biggest reason for producing in China is that they have essentially slave labor that can be called up in large numbers on demand with little notice and then dismissed when not needed. Mushkin makes excellent SSD drives and memory here in the USA at very competitive prices. It's more like absolute greed and disregard for fellow humanity that has resulted in the offshoring of jobs. "Free trade" , tax havens/breaks, and the short sightedness of corporate management driven by stock pricing has created an incentive to send jobs overseas.

Eve is a game where we pretend to be immortal beings floating around in space within a set of rules defined by CCP. An attempt at a serious comparison of Eve industry to real life production is a fool's errand.