EVE Information Portal

It wasn't just the 2% advantage that HS had. The ubiquity of slots and stations, even in a single system. The safety for things like a well set up POS. Close proximity to major trade hubs (i.e. HS transportation costs and logistics are stupid easy and safe if you know what you are doing).

And null always had the POS fuel advantage that nullified the mining advantage (the differential between running a large POS in HS vs. NS is at least 100 million isk.

None of this even changes really. You'll still have stations (for which you wont have to pay sov bills), CONCORD, close proximity to trade hubs, and so forth. Now null will have an advantage in refining...big whooop. What are they going to do take over the ship building industries? GMAFB

Do bpos drop if they're in research? Components don't drop from in-build manufacturing jobs, so I suspect bpos will not either.

Hmm... Generalizations and assumptions weaken the merit of an argument.

A degree of risk adversion is logical, sane, and prudent. To what degree varies person to person and group to group, but any risk that is without appropriate reward lacks enough merit to justify itself. Much in the same vein locations that are more "free" have lower expectations of security due the associated benefit of that freedom.

I form my arguments in line with neutrality to location not centered on my own play style, particularly in this thread.
The argument against removing remote from station POS work stems from how I perceive the mechanics involved. As I've stated before I view blueprints much more akin to DRM items. In that regard an actual interaction with the physical item need not be required. The blueprint original or copy is as described a licensed set of instructs and methodologies. Research improves the methodologies hence making the instruction commands more efficient in either time or waste. Manufacturing as well need not directly need the physical interaction with the data set and instructions just a method of getting the constructs to the apparatus implementing them. Even if we go with the supposition that BPC's decay physically due to consumption of a licensed run it still need not physical interaction at the apparatus level.

Arguments I've made against lifting the restriction on anchoring starbases in high-sec is reflection of basic territorial security concerns. Just as sovereign player territories can dictate who and what can be in their systems it is reasonable and balanced to expect NPC space to act in much the same manner. Groups wanting to use the privileged space of null, low or even high must comply with respect with the sovereign of that territory then to the power bloc groups operating inside the sovereigns territory. It is a fair, logical, and universally applicable premise.

Another of my argument has been against taxes, charges or fees on any player owned structure without clearly defined and applicable reason. The ability of of a NPC corp to scale its facilities with subsequent additional costs need not nor should be forced upon starbase facilities. Additionally player outposts should be able to elect to implement that feature or not. If the owner has chosen to use said ability, the reason for the cost and where it goes and how should be defined.

All in all, a well rounded unbiased set of arguments with no hidden agenda.

In postscript I would like to apologize particularly for the very specific and uncommon terms used especially the to individuals who speak english as a second language. The reason was to reduce ambiguity, I do not feel that I am any better or worse than another nor wish to be seen as an elitist.

Probably far better than you do.

But, please, rather than throw out insults, feel free to explain your position more clearly, so that everyone else can understand how this applies to POS-based research and manufacturing in EVE, when under perpetual threat of a wardec.

I can't and won't even try to refute economic theory. However only a small percentage of players, likely very small, even care about macro-economics, most are not much more interested in economics other than not taking a loss while being engaged and entertained. At it's foundation Eve is a game, a very diverse, feature rich, quasi simulation of a hypothetical future. The physics engine isn't even remotely close to known laws or theorized possibilities. The simplification is required to make it an enjoyable game. Precision in the simulation of various aspects would make Eve frustrating to the point of death by account attrition. The use of real world parallels only work in aspects to set the game universe in easily understandable framework, otherwise it would be far too alien for the general public. Eve makes you think and diverts a person's attention from issues that daily stress.

The simple fact is player's shouldn't and don't need to micromanage everything, so if a player runs their jobs at a POS, Station, Outpost or by some weird alignment of space time the laundry service of their ship the cost in material and time is already understood and accepted. If a single player corp has the the individual go offline for that annoying experience called the real world, they have their jobs set, POS fueled for a reasonable duration and the corp gets a war-declaration and subsequent burning of the POS to a cinder, the associated loss of structures, product, and materials pale in comparison to the emotional impact of a player who had spent significant time and isk to acquire blueprints especially hard to get originals or faction copies.

Playing Eve is not more important than real life concerns, a job, or relationships. Anyone who would think that really needs to seek some mental health help (I'm not being specific to any one person). Additionally in a game, perception is reality, no matter unfounded it may seem.

lol... right from the Business 101 freshman course on Microeconomics. No point in arguing why you are wrong - you'll need a few years of actual business experience to understand how, and why, people actually decide to make such decisions.


You are arguing against yourself.

Your accusation was that HS industry folks are too fearful to put a BPO in a POS. I stated that this behavior isn't motivated by fear, but by simple risk/cost analysis against using a POS, in a situation where you can be wardec'ced.

You are now arguing that HS industry folks don't need to use a POS.

And, I made no assumption about whether it is more expensive to use a POS or a NPC station.

As long as it's the right already overly congested station

Presently we can have them in an Office in a station that doesn't have slots and do all this with our POS ... lower cost (well used to be till POS fuel went up in price !) and a bit faster.

Now if we still want to use the POS we have to risk additional Billions of investment in the BPOs and stick them out there in space.

Sounds just like something corporates that invest time and money in risk mitigation would go and do

Maybe you should first revisit POS setups and give us a little more of a chance to even try and protect assets in so called "High Sec" against the usual 20 to 1 battles that usually come with war-decs when POSes are concerned first.

It's not a case of no risk as we still have to move the BPCs about and if it's manufacturing or researching stuff can be lost in a POS attack already.

Other changes I think you all have done a lot more thinking on and will be eagerly awaited.

Yeah moving your operations is not an option.

This is exactly the kind of thing that economists do when setting up lab experiments. Yes, they are simplifications, but they still provide lots of potentially useful information on how markets work. And the great thing is in the MMOs with very developed economies...the participants pay to play. EVE is perhaps the best one in this regard and frankly I'm surprised more economists are not looking at it to test theories. If I were a young grad student I'd be trying to find a way to use such data.

My point is, that the theories of economics do not stop just because EVE is a game. In fact, EVE may be one place to study them in detail because of the simplifications.

For example, Price convergence in an online virtual world. One of the predictions of neoclassical economics is that when you have a market with a homogeneous good and many buyers and sellers there will be "one price" even in different locations. Some key assumptions are no transportation costs and no economic barriers between locations. The researchers used WoW where ganking is not really a factor. It would be interesting to see what the research would say when applied to the New Eden economy.

One thing is that ganking freighters may actually be what helps create the price differences that many players take advantage of and make isk.

So if you are making isk by doing arbitrage (buying low in one region and selling high in another) don't complain about those gank squads...they may be the very reason you have a profit. Just play smart and find ways to avoid them and enjoy your isk.

Amusingly making ganking harder could actually reduce the profitability of this in game profession...careful what you ask for.

The argument that I make against blueprints being force into starbase structures to be used relies more on logistical and unneeded complexity issues with a dash of lore supportable real life parallels to reinforce the concept.

Individuals who contributed other reasons for the same only add to the points why it is undesirable, just as mine reinforces theirs. Blanket statements to refute the arguments combined invalidate themselves.

Other statements about fears and loss avoidance crippling individuals or groups from pursuing opportunities fail to take into account the context of mine and similar arguments. To propose a change to copy production location would be the only valid instance to support such claims in regards to the blueprint location. However in this thread on this specific topic it hasn't been suggested. Space borne assets are at risk irregardless, POCO and starbases are attacked and destroyed even in high-sec on regular basis and their contents are subject to loss. This is a natural and proper process as it serves the true purpose of war especially in regards to attrition, retaliation, and expansion.

Losing materials, structures, and product is a risk that all but the under informed or naive know and accept and would fall under the pretext of if you can't defend it you lose it, the act of deserving something is irrelevant.

Equating freighter ganking in the same context isn't valid, also I would like to point out that the threat could be mitigated with combat escorts and scouts if desired to truly reduce losses from acts of piracy. (note I didn't say end piracy)

Forming your point or counter point in a discussion/debate solely on either an over intellectualized of economic modeling or over simplified "Kill or Die" stance both ignore the fact to be able to play in your particular style or observe and interact with a reactive market model for study and analysis requires all the varied and individual shades and styles between. Doing so makes the model static and moot also predator without prey turn upon themselves ultimately leaving on a few left that in life would starve and in game would so grow bored.

As an after thought, anyone who has ever used the locking mechanics would know using it is not a quick on and off process it requires a vote to lock and unlock.