EVE Information Portal

I will start with the preface that mining is the introduction to Industry. Mining Barges requires Science and Industry skills - which are the pillars of an Industry career. So here we are talking about Refining which is the immediate step from harvesting and structures to support this. But no where in the entire conversation about Upwell so far is "introductory citadel". So, what happened to "the promise being kept to big and small".

Can there be limits to being able to anchor citadels. As a small note of history I participated in a war-dec to obtain a moon from another corporation. Location, Location, Location. It was to anchor a POS. Conflict over a resource is a cornerstone of this game. But no longer. There is no limit to the number of citadels or their position. There should be more reasons to flight, this is one less.

Can there be places where citadels cannot be placed. Similar to how shattered wormholes work. Logistics adds vulnerability and rewards ingenuity. How, where or why, I'll leave up to you, CCP.

If this was going to happen, we'd already be doing it. POS are quite a stitch easier to take out, and require far fewer folks to exploit once owned.

The idea that we'd somehow start doing this after the process is changed to take longer and require several orders of magnitude more manpower is uniquely insane.

Moons will be "freed up" in the sense that it makes zero sense to pay fuel every month to hold a moon that you lack the manpower to exploit.

Duh, I thought this was pretty clear already. Doesn't take a genius, EVE has experience with the introduction of this kind of systemic mechanisms with origins in mechanical (as opposed to behavoural) focus. It's an exact repeat of the POS Moon Mining introduction once upon a time.


@ CCP, it's been a long road and you've learned a lot, New Eden and you are better for it. But as it stands now, this is a conceptual catch22 which seems to have sprung from something which I haven't seen in a long time: an approach from mechanical to behavioural, whereas the awesome experience built up with this behavioural pressure cooker called EVE demonstrates that the approach should be the other way around.

That prevents stumbling into perception problems as well as the old adagio of n+1, but it also provides balances between the metrics and indexes versus the actual required dynamic nature of the pressure cooker.

It should be clear that just about every response you are going to get is geared around interests, you know this. It isn't hard to extrapolate behavioural effects from the current state of proposed changes and introductions.

The gist of it is that it promotes short term upheaval at a cost of long term affirmation of status quo behaviour. Yes, it introduces new conflict niches, but you cannot look at those without also looking at the frame they exist in and the dependencies shared by the people operating those frames. Yes, I can see the consequences for the precious indexes, but this state follows the same pattern as the original POS concepts introduced once upon a time very very very long ago.

To be blunt, I like the concept. I can see where it is coming from (literally, I've seen ancient player proposals on the old forums and friggin Google Docs that are an exact match for this - but yes, I can also see the line of thinking, but keep in mind that in mechanical design focus form follows function, while you essentially deal with behaviour). But the direction of that line has the wrong starting point. You're looking at consequence models, whereas a decade plus of EVE demonstrates that it is the effects that matter. Subtle but significant difference.

The irony here is that this current state of what is presented would actually be as required for instigating a pattern of dynamic shifts for recurring conflict niches (and catalysts) if you added resource migration/depletion to the mix. How odd. Are you sure this isn't something on the drawing board? Cause from this behavioural approach the mechanisms follow a challenge (as opposed to a support) function. I know, the old fears pop up. Blue donut. But consider scarcity effects on economics of scale. It makes things blow up. It's why the very concept of proxy wars was invented by humans for crying out loud :P Why institutional corruption is a factor of both conflict and entropy. Need I go on? See how close you are with this concept, yet *just* that bit off?

And that's not just more fun and more activity without enforcing the same organisational behaviour on every existing niche big and small, it's also a lot healthier in terms of resource allocation. After all - with the caveat that you're not thinking about migration/depletion - you're just replacing one set of mechanical constraints with another on a larger scale. I know, no more legacy code issues. But it's still a trap of resource allocation and setting priorities for design down the road. While everybody behaves in accordance to fixed boundaries that do not change. Status quo.


There's a thing called dependancy management for geo-economics which interestingly is also present in group psychology (as well as other fields like political economics, geo-politics et alii). You're *this* close with this concept to applying that effectively, but if it isn't a full match, it only reinforces static consumption and control. So either something has to be added to the mix in order to put behavioural focus first, or we're back to migration/depletion.


Keep in mind, I don't think this will be read - everything seems to be taking place on Reddit and Twitter, neither of which are really suitable for the feedback processes you appear to be asking for - but hey, I'm old in EVE, so it'll be interesting to see if the next communication shows any hint of processing feedback routines

I remember that argument from several times over It never came to be. Humans and their behaviour, what can I say. Maybe it's time for an invasion of aliens - might be better odds at getting some common sense in this universe.

Your previous post compared this to POSes, but I don't agree with that comparison. POSes required fuel, yes, but outside of that it is a passive isk generator that needs only a single person to maintain. This new system requires multiple people (and don't say bots, because this would be the perfect bot trap in CCP's mind) and there is only finite amount of time a single pilot can give. Not saying the smarter alliances won't find some way to mitigate or even find some financial advantage, but we can only speculate from what we know.

And so far, this would break up the stranglehold on a lot of moons.

Mining, really?

Let me clarify, I'm not looking that much at the mechanics of an introduction like this. I'm looking at it from a behavioural angle. As CCP often mentions, the reason why EVE works is because it's essentially an emergent dynamic - a closed environment where behaviour dictates function. Which is subtly but significantly different from a mechanical approach where behaviour follows form follows function.

Even just within a mechanical approach, the very same variables apply. Teamwork, resource requirements, risk assesments, combined use paths, and so forth. POS Moon Mining was actually once presented by a CCPian as bot proof. Well ... *cough*

It's a design/development challenge either way, they need to introduce mechanisms that follow behavioural options and choices, while also subtly guiding those - and sometimes providing boundaries. The mechanical approach however is always in line with EVE's fundamentel model of functional dependancies, and as such vulnerable to us players going apeshit as usual. Economics of scale applies, N+1 applies, and there's the very same behavioural effects which we've seen demonstrated as being negative (even unhealthy) like enforcing the same organisational models on all (regardless of niche of play) and the pitfalls of grind.

As I said, they're incredibly close to something which would avoid the known stumbling blocks - no pun intended :P From a des/dev angle this mechanical approach comes extremely close to a functional behavioural model. But because it just misses that mark, the consequences may be nice in the statistical reporting and analysis, but the behavioural effects are the same as before/current. Thus making this a matter of resource allocation to realistically achieve only a short term effect.

Lowsec will be affected by this, absolutely. As a composite niche of play the stimuli generated by the current form of this concept can only reinforce the pattern where organisational states of null sec are copied - or where local dynamics are replaced by the proverbial long arms of null sec (in a very similar manner to what I predicted to follow when citadels were introduced for hub behaviour, see Perimeter, Amarr, etc, which are increasingly subject to those patterns).

Null won't really be affected. The organisational and behavioural models there can easily cope with the mechanical changes. Expensive, sure. Does it require much adaptation? Not really. In terms of behaviour itself it only reinforces status quo. Yes, it creates room/incentive for more population, but no realistic triggers for behaviour that instigates dynamic shifts. Nice for the young kids now to have a future mining in null, nice for taxes, but it's the same pattern as when pos based moon mining made its shift from private to corp to alliance use.

Highsec is a non-factor, as it appears. Which more or less makes sense really.

There are two issues at play here.

Moon Mining

Reactions and t2 production...

Agreed, moon mining is very passive income. As much as I hate the thought of introducing serious mining into t2 production, I can see where the thought is coming from. This might also equalize prices across moons, as r16 and r8 mats might actually be in demand owing to labor shortages.

I still think the concept of generating "content" by forcing relatively defenseless ships to sit at a known area at a specified time is very lacking, but that's what we have with entosising and the nerf of off grid boosts.

There's two types pvp... pvp for fun, which industrialists don't generally revel in, and there's pvp to save your system, structures, sov, etc. Industrialists and political powers will fight and finance to the death if only to keep from having to redo their spreadsheets. To my mind, that's real content, but to each his own. With asset safety, a lot of content has been reduced to miner tackled, save or don't save him.

Reacting is not really passive income, requiring substantial logistics, daily maintenance, upkeep of cyno and trade alts, and active regional defense. Until now, it was essentially separate from typical t2 production with the vast majority of t2 builders beginning at finished reactions or even components. It is, however, a living a determined spreadsheeter could achieve largely on one toon if part of a cooperative alliance.

Moving reactions into the industry UI really turns it into T1 production. You've just added a new class of asteroids and two entirely redundant steps to the typical process. Instead of reaction - component - ship, it's first level reaction, final reaction, components, ships.

This reduces the complexity of t2 production and increases the redundancy and tedium... more flavors of asteroids/minerals, more steps in process, but no unique process, substantive investment, or expertise... just a skill and a citadel. It's akin to mining relic sites for relic dust that a 5M bpo turns into ancient salvage.

If it made any sense to me, I'd try to be on board.

When did I miss the outcry about there not being enough mining required in Eve? Who has been begging for more 80Msp proteus vs 6m sp npc corp mining alt "rich content" pvp?

Who has been clamoring for redundancy in t2 production?

I'm serious, someone please explain to me, like I'm an idiot, what the point is. I keep expecting CCP to evemail me explaining how they've totally reconsidered given all my excellent insights, but so far, nuthin.. lol

You do realize that none of the mining stuff in this devblog is going to be in highsec, right? All highsec gets from this is a reprocessing structure.