These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

You CANT Nerf HighSec!

First post First post First post
Author
Frying Doom
#1601 - 2012-12-29 07:14:50 UTC
SmilingVagrant wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
mynnna wrote:

Smart players looked ahead in their skill plan for longer skills to set overnight/during class/etc whenever possible. Blink

Well I definitely was not that smart when I first started this game and wanted to be able to fly such mighty ships as a Vexor and then the omni-powerful battle cruiser.

I still remember getting up early to set skills up to train for those.


I wasn't around then, but it sounds like something that would make me just say "This game is dumb" and I'd quit rather than deal with it.

Strangely I think it was one of the things that gave the game its charm, so much was broken and did not work back then (Ok some things like corp management are still exactly the same)

But it was as if you were supporting the little guy CCP against the Giant of the MMO world. But of course customer service was better back then too.

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

mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1602 - 2012-12-29 07:18:05 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:

Some portions of highsec industry could definitely stand to be changed.

The costs of assembly lines should have a higher base and be reduced by standing, for one glaring one.

Yes. Standings are questionable - if the POS revamp goes through as everyone hopes, better to leave them flat and give people a reason to want to do a POS for large scale production instead. But given that fees effectively come to about .005% or so for most production ("most" by mineral volume, mind you), they're meaningless right now. It's a ~400m/mo isk sink. Slot fees could be increased to something as small as .25% of estimated material value without significantly increasing costs to players (.25% of a 150m isk battleship is 375k), yet the increase in the isk sink would be significant - three to six trillion a month per quarter percent, by my estimates.

Buzzy Warstl wrote:
T2 and T3 production should require a POS assembly line or other "advanced facility" with lower availability.

Interesting alternative approach to encouraging POS use. Shouldn't happen until post-POS revamp though.
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Highsec production could be slowed down marginally.

"Due to new safety regulations from the CONCORD Health & Safety Division..." Blink

Buzzy Warstl wrote:
There was one suggestion early in this thread of cutting the number of highsec lines in half, and that absolutely should not happen for reasons of access.

Debatable. Jita 4-4 itself is clogged as all hell but slots open up rapidly even within a few jumps. I haven't surveyed further but I'd imagine production drops off significantly the further you get from hubs and jita in general. Likewise, if we come back to the idea of wanting people to feel like they should want a post-revamp POS (for T1 production as well as T2/T3 like you suggested), fewer slots available is a good thing. People erect POS now to do research in because of limited availability, after all - it would be the same idea with manufacturing.

Buzzy Warstl wrote:
However, if industry is balanced purely on the back of highsec changes, the magnitude of the nerfs necessary *would* be sufficient to drive people out. As such (and based on your comments you see that too), I expect any industry changes to industry to open as many opportunities as close.

Also debatable. Nerfs for the sake of nerfs is one thing and should probably be avoided. Nerfs for the sake of buffs in other areas as with Hans' heavy missile example, sometimes a necessary evil. Nerfs that perhaps encourage usage of post-revamp POSes...perhaps they're buffs? As I saw it put elsewhere in response to the idea (that I proposed) of "nerf highsec to encourage POS use in a post-revamp Eve", "it's not a nerf, it's a buff. These ideas finally give me, as a highsec industrialist, an actual path of progression."


Food for thought.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1603 - 2012-12-29 07:18:57 UTC
SmilingVagrant wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:

Oh great, poor IRC... you know what I mean.


Turns out Against all Anomalies is just as bad as IRC, so my killboard is full and my autocannons are empty. Life found a way.

Explosions maybe.

Wonder if Against ALL Authorities will now turn up and stab us in the back in revenge for, uh, actually it was HBC burnt down their home...

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 ?

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1604 - 2012-12-29 07:28:00 UTC
SmilingVagrant wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:

What HAVE RZR been up to?

How did the newbie class go?

Raiding the CFC's game reserve in the drone regions, albeit a bit more, erm...forcefully...than normal.

As is typical, IRC took it for a full scale invasion and began to cascade (check that slope) so they backed off.


The funny thing is most of us had left IRC be for a bit because they had taken to dropping 200 man fleets on small roaming gangs. Obviously the punching bag had been punched a few too many times. Then RZR has to go and ruin it all.

Yeah well, I'm just a regular member. I don't decide anything for anyone but myself. :P

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Frying Doom
#1605 - 2012-12-29 07:40:36 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:

Some portions of highsec industry could definitely stand to be changed.

The costs of assembly lines should have a higher base and be reduced by standing, for one glaring one.

Yes. Standings are questionable - if the POS revamp goes through as everyone hopes, better to leave them flat and give people a reason to want to do a POS for large scale production instead. But given that fees effectively come to about .005% or so for most production ("most" by mineral volume, mind you), they're meaningless right now. It's a ~400m/mo isk sink. Slot fees could be increased to something as small as .25% of estimated material value without significantly increasing costs to players (.25% of a 150m isk battleship is 375k), yet the increase in the isk sink would be significant - three to six trillion a month per quarter percent, by my estimates.

Buzzy Warstl wrote:
However, if industry is balanced purely on the back of highsec changes, the magnitude of the nerfs necessary *would* be sufficient to drive people out. As such (and based on your comments you see that too), I expect any industry changes to industry to open as many opportunities as close.

Also debatable. Nerfs for the sake of nerfs is one thing and should probably be avoided. Nerfs for the sake of buffs in other areas as with Hans' heavy missile example, sometimes a necessary evil. Nerfs that perhaps encourage usage of post-revamp POSes...perhaps they're buffs? As I saw it put elsewhere in response to the idea (that I proposed) of "nerf highsec to encourage POS use in a post-revamp Eve", "it's not a nerf, it's a buff. These ideas finally give me, as a highsec industrialist, an actual path of progression."


Food for thought.

Thats a good question, how much is too much. As I have said in relation to refining to nerf NPC facilities but how much should an NPC facility charge that is not a stupid amount but enough to get players to want to manufacture via POS and should more advances processes like T2 and T3 production only be able to occur at a POS?

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

mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1606 - 2012-12-29 07:53:03 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
With respect to manufacturing, dunno. I haven't drilled too deeply into the math in that regard, comparing manufacturing costs and such to POS fuel and looking at the break point. It wouldn't take much though. Figure 200m isk for a Tier 3 battleship, for example, as the estimated value of the materials. If we assume .25% of estimated materials value as the fee, keeping it in production 24/7 (with no PE research) runs you around 100m isk, per BPO. Keeping a full set of ten BPOs in production would thus run you a billion isk or so per month, which is well above what a POS costs to fuel. Of course in that scenario we're talking about someone with the wherewithal to run over 40 billion a month worth of minerals through production.

Obviously encouraging POS use means that the isk sink factor is diminished, but considering the substantial increase in the size of the sink at even a quarter of a percent, it seems likely that CCP could find a nice balance point where smaller producers stay in stations and drain isk out of the economy, while larger ones move into POS. Plus, they could always replace charters and standings with payments to the local starbase authority for POS slots, replacing some of the sink. Blink

Refining is another matter and I've got mixed feelings about the easy availability of perfect refines in highsec. One proposal for allowing for nullsec entities to effectively tax their miners, for example, is to bump the highsec loss rate to a mandatory 5% or so, giving us a larger window to set taxes without people shipping their ore out instead. Not a big fan of that concept though - even if it is effective, it limits the freedom said entities have in setting their tax rates.

T2 and T3 production being POS-only is interesting and deserves some consideration.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Frying Doom
#1607 - 2012-12-29 08:36:06 UTC
mynnna wrote:

Refining is another matter and I've got mixed feelings about the easy availability of perfect refines in highsec. One proposal for allowing for nullsec entities to effectively tax their miners, for example, is to bump the highsec loss rate to a mandatory 5% or so, giving us a larger window to set taxes without people shipping their ore out instead. Not a big fan of that concept though - even if it is effective, it limits the freedom said entities have in setting their tax rates.

T2 and T3 production being POS-only is interesting and deserves some consideration.

With High sec I believe that they should have perfect refine with max skill and the implant so Refining V, Refining Efficiency V and ore processing V, plus the 4% ore processing implant (Zainou "beancounter' Refining RX-804) this of course being at NPC stations. I feel that player owned structures should have a base 30% and base 50% refining add on to allow for perfect refines depending on how much you are willing to pay with manufacturing slots on the current POS increased by 50-100%.

To top this all off I feel that areas of -0.01 should have abilities even higher than these with manufacturing slots on assembly arrays increased by 150% so as to allow a massive player owned industry occurring but proportionate to the added risk.

But with this added manufacturing capability Null require the addition of Hi-sec minerals (This is actually the dangerous part of the whole process) if the ability to transport goods and project power are left as they are Hi-sec markets will be flooded with cheap goods that the local producers will not be able to closely match while at the same time losing their largest market for goods.

This I feel needs to be done by altering the range of Jumps drives and bridges so as the effects of improved industry is more localized. Same goes for titan bridges, with a massive increase in manufacturing and the raw materials to do so it is important that more ships be able to be attacked as they move towards a target system as well as the ability to give greater vulnerability to logistics.

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

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#1608 - 2012-12-29 09:54:46 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:


Why in the world would anyone assume the only two options are "carebear in highsec" or "join the CFC" ? Talk about oversimplification. Ugh The fact that everyone is funneling into two organizations is one of the problems that we're trying to fix in the first place.



Oversimplification has to be avoided on the developer side at all costs, but the playerbase WILL oversimplify and min max, so the design has to be robust to survive that.

Example: CCP poured in efforts into tiericide and ships rebalance.
Even then, players will oversimplify and min max. Post patch I got told: "Hurricane? That's trash now, we all switched to Talos and [Amarr ship I forgot the name of].

In the end out of the various choices, the players will only pick the "best" or min maxed 1-2.

Imagine the choices for industry, where margins and competition matter a lot:

1) Hi sec: have some 30% reprocess waste, T2 taken away (like some keep proposing) and so on: you just get kicked out of the market, it's financially impossible to compete when the basic production is more expensive. Look at my country, our electricity costs 33% more than the rest of Europe and almost all the energy intensive compaines left for other greener pastures.

2) Low sec: vastly more dangerous than sov nullsec, can't really put your POSes at the center of an empire, very tiny moon harvesting available. No CSAA either. Faction warfare "tubes" running everywhere. Low sec has no real extensive market so the industrialists in there also have to constantly cross the hi-lo sec "barrier".

3) Worm holes: logistics alone make it impractical to produce anything larger than mods for export, no stable access to market hubs both for importing stuff and exporting finished goods.

4) NPC null sec: more dangerous than sov null sec, similar issues to low sec minus FW plus hot drops and bubbles.


This is why in this thread I have called - many times - to FIRST update sov nullsec industry facilities to hi sec levels, THEN see what happens, THEN eventually nerf hi sec and low sec reprocessing and other facilities.

If sov null sec had all the good things, then moving there would be a complete no-brainer. Only the spineless wussies would stay in hi sec, that is we just got a canned "game is meant to drive you in there" gameplay.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#1609 - 2012-12-29 10:02:51 UTC
mynnna wrote:


I am highly amused that Hans can suggest highsec needs nerfs/tweaks and have it be "well written" or "reassuring", whereas if I or Aryth or Weaselior suggest it, it's met with wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Although Hans did do a much better job of articulating why such tweaks would be necessary. Perhaps I should take notes.


Definitely.

- Having a (less) interested third party talking about stuff makes it much easier want to listen their proposals.

- Having said third party not talk like: "moronic hi seccers you are the scum of EvE you should be gassed, the game lives only because of ~content~ we create and not your useless stories" helps PLENTY as well.

Yes I heavily exaggerated the second point as summary of dozens of bad threads made in the last months, this aggressive and confrontational mentality has been shown again and again and certainly creates a divide between the playerbase.
It's really what I keep calling "ideology" (and another guy tells me it's goonspiracy).
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#1610 - 2012-12-29 10:10:25 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:

You never set your alarm for your skill que? Thank god those days are over.


Hmm don't make me recall those times. Had up to 6 accounts and keeping all of them training was...well... UGH! Ugh
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#1611 - 2012-12-29 10:31:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Also, I have filed a request on TheMittani.com about posting a blog on multiple hi sec industry nerfs of a larger magnitude than i.e. Mynna has just said. For some reason they did not reply (not even a "LOL").

So I'll talk about 1 here: it's quite easy to entice hi sec players into using POSes instead of using stations. Just use the "new" moving average system and align station costs per slot to using same region POSes plus a percent that depends on standings.
Characters located on *accounts* younger than 1 month use the current system or a discounted version of the above to help them out.

This will have multiple effects:

1) Young players are not hurt.

2) Having the stations lines costs matched and correlated to region POS fuels costs will greatly hint players at just going for a POS while still not forcing them into it.

3) Having the stations lines costs matched and correlated to region POS fuels costs will entice people to move away from Jita and similar high cost regions anyway.

4) Having additional discounts tied to standings will also entice players to go for a POS more: "I grinded standings for [whatever]" I may as well setup a POS and get an additional discount to boot.

5) The "percent" / discount could be setup exactly to provide sov null sec alliances the margin for taxing the POSes lines.
Brooks Puuntai
Solar Nexus.
#1612 - 2012-12-29 10:55:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Brooks Puuntai
If you ever want T2 production for POSs to be better then station, then you need to reduce the material multiplier for Adv. Assembly arrays. When comparing the reduction in time with the increase in material cost using a POS isn't worth it. Not to mention the need for a ship hanger which isn't cost effective when running a research/manufacturing POS. If this is going to be changed with the revamp I don't know. but I doubt it.

CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE / Dynamic New Eden

Frying Doom
#1613 - 2012-12-29 11:21:31 UTC
Brooks Puuntai wrote:
If you ever want T2 production for POSs to be better then station, then you need to reduce the material multiplier for Adv. Assembly arrays. When comparing the reduction in time with the increase in material cost using a POS isn't worth it. Not to mention the need for a ship hanger which isn't cost effective when running a research/manufacturing POS. If this is going to be changed with the revamp I don't know. but I doubt it.

So you believe they should remove the additional material cost and the ship hanger.

I can see the need for the ship hanger myself as an output for the T2 production but do feel there should be no additional mineral requirements.

Also they should have more manufacturing slots within them and T2 and T3 production should not be possible within NPC stations.

I think the aim here should very much be to get people off NPC reliance while at the same time rewarding those that have worked for standings and rewarding those in dangerous areas even more while taking lo-sec as the base line for the POS revamp.

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

Frying Doom
#1614 - 2012-12-29 11:31:13 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Also, I have filed a request on TheMittani.com about posting a blog on multiple hi sec industry nerfs of a larger magnitude than i.e. Mynna has just said. For some reason they did not reply (not even a "LOL").

So I'll talk about 1 here: it's quite easy to entice hi sec players into using POSes instead of using stations. Just use the "new" moving average system and align station costs per slot to using same region POSes plus a percent that depends on standings.
Characters located on *accounts* younger than 1 month use the current system or a discounted version of the above to help them out.

This will have multiple effects:

1) Young players are not hurt.

2) Having the stations lines costs matched and correlated to region POS fuels costs will greatly hint players at just going for a POS while still not forcing them into it.

3) Having the stations lines costs matched and correlated to region POS fuels costs will entice people to move away from Jita and similar high cost regions anyway.

4) Having additional discounts tied to standings will also entice players to go for a POS more: "I grinded standings for [whatever]" I may as well setup a POS and get an additional discount to boot.

5) The "percent" / discount could be setup exactly to provide sov null sec alliances the margin for taxing the POSes lines.

Ok you lost me a bit on this one arnt the fuel costs for just about any type of POS fuel cheaper in Jita than in Kor-Azor for example. So wouldn't it in fact cause people to want POSs closer to trade hubs?

Frankly I don't like the idea of sheltering noobs more than they are atm as to make any kind of manufacturing profit you really need Production Efficiency V anyway.

I do agree that the NPC stations should still have their standings discounts the same as they are but reduce the base refine rate and increase the cost of the NPC slots to above what a POS slot costs reducing it to about the same with reputation, so their is no advantage to be had in not having a POS other than the fact it is a pay as you go scheme rather than a monthly cost.

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

Bump Truck
Doomheim
#1615 - 2012-12-29 11:32:51 UTC
Tesal wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
...some players here are willing to selfishly allow stubborn adherence to a status quo stand in the way of allowing the design teams to solve problems in an innovative, effective, and elegant fashion throughout the next set of expansion releases...


I don't know what your position is at the CSM but much of what has been proposed in this thread has been a scorched earth attack on hi-sec. A massive nerf is neither called for nor needed.



This is nothing but baseless libel. I challenge you to find any reasonable post (and by that I mean more than one paragraph) suggesting that.

This thread has been remarkably civil and the majority consensus is that industry in null needs fixing and that is a complex issue and it may, "may", require an even handed HighSec nerf to accomplish that.

Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1616 - 2012-12-29 11:33:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Malphilos
mynnna wrote:
Malphilos wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I want there to be a reason for industrialists to take risks, make huge stacks of cash, go on adventures, explore new products and new markets, to be able to live their profession anywhere int he EVE universe they damn well feel like it. The last thing I want to do is to dictate to anyone the kind of social structure they have to participate in to experience that. But I also hate to see so many people discouraged from ever moving beyond the trade hub zones "because life out there just sucks and its not worth it and not fun"


Let us know when you fix the problem with people. There's an ass-load of RL cash to be made with that discovery.


He wants to give people the tools to take risk (etc).

If people are unable or unwilling to do so, that's their problem.


The "tools" are already there. I'll bet that's why he said "reason".

While I'm encouraged by at least part of what he claims to be proposing ("The last thing I want to do is to dictate to anyone the kind of social structure they have to participate in to experience that.") it flies in the face of the nature of the game in general, null in particular and human behavior overall.
Bump Truck
Doomheim
#1617 - 2012-12-29 11:39:23 UTC

This is rather off topic but I think the size of the current null coalitions has a lot to do with how effort converts into reward currently in null.

If you put up some towers, fuel and empty them each month (a couple of hours work) you get a large amount of resources.

If you set up PI on some planets you get quite a lot for a few hours a month.

If you mine after a while the hidden belts open up and then you make more per hour.

If you rat you get anoms and DED spaces.

If you do nothing sov fees cost you a little.


What this leads to is the best strategy is to have 1-2 mining systems (hidden belts respawn 5 minutes after they are exhausted), a few ratting systems and as many moon-mining and PI systems as possible.

This means the larger(in terms of space held) an alliance is the more it thrives, as long as it has enough people to put up towers and PI.

I think this could be changed to a system where an unworked system is very costly, if you work a system a bit it costs you a little and if you work it a lot you get big rewards.

This would encourage empires to only own as much space as they could actively work, as otherwise they would go bankrupt.

Small, more compact, blocks would emerge, leading to more PVP opportunities and allowing new entrants in null to take 1-2 systems and make good money out of them.


[To put some numbers on it, (these are just an uneducated guess);

0-20 man hours per month, 15 Billion sov fees
20-100 hours, 1 bill
100+, no sov fees]

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#1618 - 2012-12-29 11:40:10 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Ok you lost me a bit on this one arnt the fuel costs for just about any type of POS fuel cheaper in Jita than in Kor-Azor for example. So wouldn't it in fact cause people to want POSs closer to trade hubs?


It depends on the POS fuel needed (CCP might even alter POS characteristics at the POS patch) and other factors.
IE I found Caldari POS fuel to cost less in Citadel than The Forge, I can indeed expect carrying it so far to Kor Azor will take a toll due to logistics but that's just demand and supply at work.


Frying Doom wrote:

Frankly I don't like the idea of sheltering noobs more than they are atm as to make any kind of manufacturing profit you really need Production Efficiency V anyway.


ATM being a "noob" (I prefer "newb") in EvE is easier than the past but still a "bleh" experience. It's not like making production cheaper for them who don't even have Production Efficiency V for 1 month is going to ruin your grand plans for industry domination.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1619 - 2012-12-29 11:51:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Bump Truck wrote:


What this leads to is the best strategy is to have 1-2 mining systems (hidden belts respawn 5 minutes after they are exhausted), a few ratting systems and as many moon-mining and PI systems as possible.

This means the larger(in terms of space held) an alliance is the more it thrives, as long as it has enough people to put up towers and PI.

I think this could be changed to a system where an unworked system is very costly, if you work a system a bit it costs you a little and if you work it a lot you get big rewards.

This would encourage empires to only own as much space as they could actively work, as otherwise they would go bankrupt.

Small, more compact, blocks would emerge, leading to more PVP opportunities and allowing new entrants in null to take 1-2 systems and make good money out of them.
Or it would facilitate an -A- style renter empire.
An activity-based sov system fixes some of the problems in 0.0, but secondary economic inferiority to highsec and lack of bottom-up income generation are also things that need to be fixed.
Frying Doom
#1620 - 2012-12-29 12:40:35 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:


ATM being a "noob" (I prefer "newb") in EvE is easier than the past but still a "bleh" experience. It's not like making production cheaper for them who don't even have Production Efficiency V for 1 month is going to ruin your grand plans for industry domination.

My worry is more about giving players false information as the the realities of manufacturing as they would be.

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