These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Nerfing Highsec manufacuring and the "End of EVE" as we know it

First post
Author
Sabrina Solette
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#81 - 2012-09-07 08:05:24 UTC
Abel Merkabah wrote:
I was simply explaining that one cannot buff low/null and not effect high.






If you start to make low-sec and null much better places to manufacture then they are likely to start consuming more and more of the high end minerals. Problem with that is it's likely to put the prices up of those minerals that reach high-sec. If goods start appearing in high-sec that are produced in low-sec and null that use those high end materials then it's likely the high-sec manufacturers might end up in a situation where they can't compete in their own market (smaller manufacturers). So effectively giving all the power to null to manipulate the market based on those high end minerals.

Biggest problem with low-sec and null is that the best market place is the trade hubs in high-sec, but making null and low-sec better won't change that because these supermarkets (trade hubs) tend to form in safer areas where there's a high population. You also have to remember that most of the new players live in high-sec and if it becomes too bad in high-sec they won't stay with the game (majority anyway).

A lot of the biggest manufacturers in high-sec more than likely do have easy access to those high end materials as they're usually running multiple accounts so they would probably go with higher prices in high-sec as it means that their profits will be greater. Kind of on a par with the food industry where they're only interested in their wallets and not the community they serve.


So if making null and low-sec better places to compete with high-sec in manufacturing then for high-sec to still be in the competition, high-sec would require easier access to those high end materials.
Idicious Lightbane
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#82 - 2012-09-07 08:07:38 UTC
RAGE QU1T wrote:
Karl Hobb wrote:
RAGE QU1T wrote:
ok, lets say for sake of argument i relocate to low sec. what incentives would be good enough for that kind of move? for instance places like Tama, Amamake, Sagain, and the infamous pirate haven Rancer.

That's a stupid argument and you know it. There are plenty of quiet low-sec systems to do your business in.



Not rly stupid when you consider those "Quiet" systems wont be so quiet and you would possible see corps/alliances blockade those systems to protect the use of those manufacuring lines in those stations.


So you invest in a jumpfreighter so you have risk free hauling back to high-sec Roll
Ludi Burek
Exit-Strategy
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#83 - 2012-09-07 08:51:05 UTC
Help me understand please as I'm not quiet sure it computes...

People rely on stations for their manufacturing in high sec?
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#84 - 2012-09-07 09:02:21 UTC
This will achieve nothing regarding the goal ... just as usual.
When will CCP learn that it's not about the money ?
Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
#85 - 2012-09-07 09:10:29 UTC


Bizarre logic.

OP think that High Sec manufacturing will be nerfed nd it will all be placed in Low Sec.

OP sounds like he manufactures things.

OP says there will be no incentive to get him to go to Low Sec.


Ummm how about all the juicy manufacturing there?

Seriously as well, even in a transport ship with the right fit you can make it from the gate to the station. ESPECIALLY if they change gate guns to start doing more damage like the idea was thrown around.

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli

Anunzi
Solace Corp
#86 - 2012-09-07 09:24:21 UTC
RAGE QU1T wrote:
So CCP wants to nerf High sec manufacturing , ok do it, if you think mods and ships are expensive now wait to see how much of an increase you will see with this nerf, and to confirm low sec is bleep and will forever be bleep and no amount of incentive will be enough for indy corps and alliances to move their assets to low sec to conduct their manufacurting under the illusion of IDK WTF??? after all this is a litter box and if i dont want i live in a certain part of space i dont have too, that's why i pay subs. i emplor every industirist to bat phone their CSM representative in hopes to find out WTF is CCP thinking about????

Discuss

http://www.evenews24.com/2012/09/06/jesters-trek-cogs/



A) NPC Corp forum alt
B) Char called RAGE QU1T
C) Posted link from the cesspit that is evenews24.com
D) Expects to be taken seriously….

0/10

"It was the way she said it, Rimmer, to rhyme with scum"

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#87 - 2012-09-07 13:10:33 UTC
Anunzi wrote:
A) NPC Corp forum alt
B) Char called RAGE QU1T
C) Posted link from the cesspit that is evenews24.com
D) Expects to be taken seriously….

0/10

Yeah, isn't there an article on this topic from themittani.com?

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Abel Merkabah
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#88 - 2012-09-07 13:57:08 UTC
Ghazu wrote:
Abel Merkabah wrote:
Ghazu wrote:

And what is wrong with that? Don't the highseccers "just want to be left alone, play the game your way?"
See how "your way" is not good for business?


I too would like to live in a bubble, just not when I am playing an MMO.

1. My way is as a horrible lowsec pirate who Plexes for ISK. Don't see how this is relavent.

2. If you meant my idea, it is not bad for business. It is a balanced changed, "Zero Sum"; the highsec industrialists are just on the wrong side of it. Nullsec industrialists would greatly prosper from the change.

Understanding this takes rudimentary logic skills; how do you struggle with this? Is it because it is hard to organize your thoughts when written in crayon? See I can ad hominen too!

I am just struggling to see how it is such a great goddamn tragedy for highsec to be oh god on the harmed side of the zero sum game.
*Also no need for you to jump out, I said "highseccers" I didn't mean you (oh crap i did used the word 'your')
Sorry I get like that after reading 3 pages of highsec whine from people like the OP.


I apologize, appears we were debating even though we appear to be on the same side.

Fly safe.

James315 for CSM 8!

highonpop
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#89 - 2012-09-07 14:03:12 UTC
You linked a blog from EN24, your point and your post are automatically null and void.

FC, what do?

Abel Merkabah
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#90 - 2012-09-07 14:09:50 UTC
Sabrina Solette wrote:
Abel Merkabah wrote:
I was simply explaining that one cannot buff low/null and not effect high.






If you start to make low-sec and null much better places to manufacture then they are likely to start consuming more and more of the high end minerals. Problem with that is it's likely to put the prices up of those minerals that reach high-sec. If goods start appearing in high-sec that are produced in low-sec and null that use those high end materials then it's likely the high-sec manufacturers might end up in a situation where they can't compete in their own market (smaller manufacturers). So effectively giving all the power to null to manipulate the market based on those high end minerals.

Biggest problem with low-sec and null is that the best market place is the trade hubs in high-sec, but making null and low-sec better won't change that because these supermarkets (trade hubs) tend to form in safer areas where there's a high population. You also have to remember that most of the new players live in high-sec and if it becomes too bad in high-sec they won't stay with the game (majority anyway).

A lot of the biggest manufacturers in high-sec more than likely do have easy access to those high end materials as they're usually running multiple accounts so they would probably go with higher prices in high-sec as it means that their profits will be greater. Kind of on a par with the food industry where they're only interested in their wallets and not the community they serve.


So if making null and low-sec better places to compete with high-sec in manufacturing then for high-sec to still be in the competition, high-sec would require easier access to those high end materials.


I was explaining the concept, so maybe it appears more extreme then it would probably truly be. As someone else already stated, nullsec population probably could not replace the capacity of highsec industrialists, so there will still be a need for it.

My question: why do you care if there is market manipulation? It is part of the game, learn to PvP better.

Put simply, large nullsec blocs put in the work to maintain their sovernty, they should reap benefits from that, including improved industry.

I do understand your trade hub argument, that is exactly why I think null industry should have the potential to be efficient enough to cover the transportation costs to be competitive with the highsec trade hubs. I believe there must be incentive to leave highsec, even for the carebear industrialists; what better way to provide incentive to move (for some not all) then making a different area magnitudes better at what they like then where they are.

James315 for CSM 8!

Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#91 - 2012-09-07 14:50:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Asuri Kinnes
Gun Gal wrote:
so lets see....... in highsec, manufacturing is king, why? probobly the same frikin reason that in real life the DEVELOPED COUNTRIES are the best at it too.

you want to have third world countries be the best at manufatcuring and the like?

jesus christ, you loosers are bigger idiots than i thought, and if CCP goes for this good luck on holding subs.

ill look on from the sidelines as the game with the greatest potential ever is nerfed into oblivion by the minority of loudmouthed whiners.

ive seen alot over the past 9 years of EVE, but this last year is really gettin rediculous, stupid ideas, stupid buisness practices, and catering to the vocal minority.

CCP, seriously take a good look what your doing, and to you vocal minority pushing for ******** changes, if i could reach though my computer screen and slap you with a dead fish, i probobly would.

prob get a ban on this post, but so what, ill just post on another account

Hi sec manufacturing is king only because of game mechanics. Period. RL analogies are not necessarily good indicators of game world mechanics. We clone jump ffs...

So, what do you have against buffing low-sec and null-sec manufacturing/Industry? Which part about "build your own empire" do you not get? Don't empires typically involve "building"?
Frying Doom wrote:
These changes are not about moving people from Hi-sec to low and Null. This is about balancing risk vs reward in the game.

Risk/Reward is one part of the equation. And honestly, these changes are *not* about moving people to null. It's rather more about making null worth *living* in.

I mean seriously (from a RP perspective) the empires *do* have overhead, they do have bureaucracies. If I had a security team (Null sec sov holding PVP'ers) large enough, might I not be tempted to put some industry in Somalia? No bureaucracy, no labor laws, no minimum wage, no environmental laws, and a population that has been begging for some "normalcy" for 30 years? (RL analogy doesn't match up entirely - leaving out all the psycho-social aspects because they don't apply in a video game).

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.

Gun Gal
Dark Club
#92 - 2012-09-08 04:43:44 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Gun Gal wrote:
so lets see....... in highsec, manufacturing is king, why? probobly the same frikin reason that in real life the DEVELOPED COUNTRIES are the best at it too.

you want to have third world countries be the best at manufatcuring and the like?

jesus christ, you loosers are bigger idiots than i thought, and if CCP goes for this good luck on holding subs.

ill look on from the sidelines as the game with the greatest potential ever is nerfed into oblivion by the minority of loudmouthed whiners.

ive seen alot over the past 9 years of EVE, but this last year is really gettin rediculous, stupid ideas, stupid buisness practices, and catering to the vocal minority.

CCP, seriously take a good look what your doing, and to you vocal minority pushing for ******** changes, if i could reach though my computer screen and slap you with a dead fish, i probobly would.

prob get a ban on this post, but so what, ill just post on another account

Hi sec manufacturing is king only because of game mechanics. Period. RL analogies are not necessarily good indicators of game world mechanics. We clone jump ffs...

So, what do you have against buffing low-sec and null-sec manufacturing/Industry? Which part about "build your own empire" do you not get? Don't empires typically involve "building"?
Frying Doom wrote:
These changes are not about moving people from Hi-sec to low and Null. This is about balancing risk vs reward in the game.

Risk/Reward is one part of the equation. And honestly, these changes are *not* about moving people to null. It's rather more about making null worth *living* in.

I mean seriously (from a RP perspective) the empires *do* have overhead, they do have bureaucracies. If I had a security team (Null sec sov holding PVP'ers) large enough, might I not be tempted to put some industry in Somalia? No bureaucracy, no labor laws, no minimum wage, no environmental laws, and a population that has been begging for some "normalcy" for 30 years? (RL analogy doesn't match up entirely - leaving out all the psycho-social aspects because they don't apply in a video game).



if you can take your head out of your ass for just a sec......

i have allready stated that i support industry buffing, considering i have dedicated industry accounts, moon mining setups, PI moons ect. and have played in null for the bulk of my carear in eve.

what i am saying that there is no need to screw over highsec in order to improve lowsec/ nullsec.

you guys dont understand that theres two types of players in EVE, those that want to pvp and be pseudo hardasses, and those that just want to relax and play internet spaceships.

no matter how hard to try to screw them over in order to "move them" to lowsec/null, it isnt going to happen , you cant change human nature.

I see what you and others are doing, but rationalizing it trying to make ascertations is going to do nothing. you change EVE too much and its over, 90% of the denziens of EVE are the people your trying to **** with. they go, you go back to Warcraft.
Vertinox
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#93 - 2012-09-08 05:05:31 UTC
Sabrina Solette wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Here's an idea, if CCP nerf hisec manufacturing... move.




Good idea, like another MMO for instance.


Ideas to nerf high-sec we shouldn't expect anything else with nobody really representing high-sec on the CSM which is where some of these ideas probably originate.


People who play for a while don't like massive changes to their lifestyle out of the blue. If it becomes a pain to play then you play elsewhere. If enough people move then HTFU doesn't apply. It's just the truth. People have quit the game because of it being too painful to lose a ship.

The truth of the matter is that there is probaly a conspiracy at CCP to destroy as many player ships as possible due to a power point presentation that shows more plex is bought in relationship to player ship losses.

But if they push this towards a higher trend then they will lose sales I believe and it will only be one person with 2,874 accounts supporting their profit margins.
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#94 - 2012-09-08 05:10:27 UTC
^ Your horror story ends, with the company still being supported. That isn't a very good ending, nor gonna scare CCP.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Pipa Porto
#95 - 2012-09-08 05:25:50 UTC
Gun Gal wrote:
what i am saying that there is no need to screw over highsec in order to improve lowsec/ nullsec.


The balance of industry between areas in EVE is one of these.

If you reduce the cost of doing business in LS/Null by enough to make it worth doing, LS/Null manufacturers will necessarily be able to produce at a lower price per unit than HS will and, assuming other issues like slot availability are taken care of, they'll be able to produce at a high enough volume to lower prices across the board, squeezing the HS manufacturers between their higher production costs and the new lower prices.

Buffing LS/Null manufacturing and Nerfing HS manufacturing are equivalent. That's what a Zero-Sum Game means.

Oh, and there's the problem of HS manufacturing having so many advantages like easy and safe (and getting safer) logistics, effectively free and unlimited manufacturing slots (I have yet to see all the manufacturing slots within 1 jump of Jita full), and safe POSes that without some large material and/or production time advantage (both of which would likely cause all sorts of other havoc), there's no way to Buff LS/Null manufacturing to be competitive without nerfing some of HS's advantages.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Frying Doom
#96 - 2012-09-08 06:25:39 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:

Frying Doom wrote:
These changes are not about moving people from Hi-sec to low and Null. This is about balancing risk vs reward in the game.

Risk/Reward is one part of the equation. And honestly, these changes are *not* about moving people to null. It's rather more about making null worth *living* in.

I mean seriously (from a RP perspective) the empires *do* have overhead, they do have bureaucracies. If I had a security team (Null sec sov holding PVP'ers) large enough, might I not be tempted to put some industry in Somalia? No bureaucracy, no labor laws, no minimum wage, no environmental laws, and a population that has been begging for some "normalcy" for 30 years? (RL analogy doesn't match up entirely - leaving out all the psycho-social aspects because they don't apply in a video game).

Well I think you miss-read what I said but I will make it a bit easier.

The whole thing is a balance between risk and reward. People in Highsec using NPC faciities are taking the least risk out their so the facilities might not be as good as in lo-sec and Null where to get more business they would naturally need better facilities.

But like any good business in the lo and Null facilities suddenly got more customers they would naturally charge more because they can and get away with it. Would this mean that if Null suddenly formed Neutral trade hubs at the NPC stations the prices to use them would rise..Hell yeah but not as much as they would for the same customer base in Empire where they have War funds to maintain as well.

On to POSs, If a player has a POS of what ever size then that player is taking more risk than using NPC stations no matter where in space are taking a greater risk than those people using NPC stations, so I believe the best refining should occur at POS's dependant of course on the money the player out lays to build their POS, with the ability to have a cheap refinary, a medium cost one and a highest cost one. These refineries should have the same if not less operational costs than the cheap ones as most product that are more efficient are normally cheaper to run.

So in essence what I am saying is NPC stations should be charging in relation to there use and POS should be king.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Donald MacRury
LankTech
#97 - 2012-09-08 06:41:26 UTC
Changing tax's and the refineries in hi sec stations to me isn't a nerf to high sec manufacturing. Also, low and null could use a little buff with refineries, especially wh's.

Having said that, I fail to see how these changes will encourage more people to move to low sec for manufacturing as its not the costs that are keeping people away from it. Its probably more so the logistics. CCP would probably do a better job in getting more people to move into low sec by having more specialized commodities that can either only be build it low/null or be more efficent to be built there.

Finally, I don't see how risk vs reward fits into manufacturing the same way as everything else since its not ccp paying players to build stuff. Players make isk off the stuff they build based on how much others are willing to pay for it no matter where they happen to be.
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Doomheim
#98 - 2012-09-08 07:45:40 UTC
James 315 wrote:
ISD Suvetar wrote:
I've cleaned the profanity in the thread, please be aware of forum rule 19.

Fixed your link too Pirate

Don't be so modest, not only did you fix the OP link, you fixed it in every post where it was quoted! Now that's going above and beyond the call of duty. Smile


I am surprised nobody told the OP to go play call of duty.
TharOkha
0asis Group
#99 - 2012-09-08 08:01:25 UTC  |  Edited by: TharOkha
As a hisec BS manufacturer i dont care. I just raise the price and thats it (as other industrialists) and im not worried that other BS industrialist move to low or null. I cant imagine how they move their Freighters from one system to another Big smile (freighter is "must have" for BS production). CCP need to think this aggain than rather nerf Hisec or buff null/low sec industry
Maa Ku
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#100 - 2012-09-08 08:25:03 UTC
RAGE QU1T wrote:
So CCP wants to nerf High sec manufacturing , ok do it, if you think mods and ships are expensive now wait to see how much of an increase you will see with this nerf, and to confirm low sec is bleep and will forever be bleep and no amount of incentive will be enough for indy corps and alliances to move their assets to low sec to conduct their manufacurting under the illusion of IDK WTF??? after all this is a litter box and if i dont want i live in a certain part of space i dont have too, that's why i pay subs. i emplor every industirist to bat phone their CSM representative in hopes to find out WTF is CCP thinking about????

Discuss

http://www.evenews24.com/2012/09/06/jesters-trek-cogs/


Ok, right so that link kind of explains why prices probably won't go up.

So you cited something that goes against your argument...