These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Fix Null > Nerf Hi

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Stray Bullets
Perkone
Caldari State
#721 - 2013-03-02 23:19:35 UTC
Yonis Kador wrote:
Earlier in this thread, I stated that I "wouldn't have a problem" with high sec taxes being adjusted (and that if they are, they should probably be relative to npc corp standing like the refine tax.) But, as I'm still keeping up with this discussion, I've got to chime in again and state that anyone asking for taxes to go up 5-10 percent needs to be dragged out behind some woodshed and put down.

I don't know how much of a profit margin you all think high sec manufacturers are making on t1 goods, but in my own experience, it's commonly 10 percent or less. I manufacture some items at cost now just to provide them for players in my region. So taxes also can't be raised so high that production declines due to having no/negative profit margins.

Again, not something you can just poke a stick at (toss out random numbers) to see what happens. (I'm starting to suspect some of you tortured ants as children. Use the magnifying glass! No, no! The salt!! Lol)

Even worse, after reading that inflation is frequently being cited as a reason to raise high sec manufacturing taxes I'm even less enthusiastic. Moar sinks! Ok. Sure. But am I the only person who thinks its a little ridiculous to ask the community to pay more to subsidize inflation while PLEX sales rise like a hot air balloon? Why should we be asked to subsidize other players PTW games?

And, it's true that there's an abundance of public high sec manufacturing slots, but that certainly isn't the case everywhere. I can't manufacture in my chosen system, for example, due to 2 (thats 2 - not 20) older, larger, corps monopolizing my available public slots. Other systems within 1-2 jumps have similar issues. Some in the 3-4 jump range have no stations at all. I'm operating 6-10 jumps from hq (and my POS) as it is. My personal experience here doesn't readily lend itself to some of these claims and I don't even operate in a busy area. I suspect other folks have it even worse. A lot of this discussion is too cerebral imo.

If one character can operate 10 manufacturing slots at once, a single acct. can occupy 30. And single acct. holders aren't quite unicorns yet, but they are an endangered species. Many systems have 1-2 stations with public manufacturing slots (50-100) so while that seems like a lot (to some of you) it often isn't the case as the mineral cost of building t1 items is so easily met and a single player both needs and can occupy many at once. A single motivated player or even a small corp can occupy hundreds simultaneously.

But my point is that again, the number of a thing, is not, in and of itself, evidence of imbalance.

Moving high sec manufacturing to POS's presents even worse issues. I have no idea what it would do for anyone else, but it would literally destroy my game. Anyone who is advocating this should give up the raise taxes/reduce slots debate entirely. If this is done, the number of available slots to any given player drops like a rock (a POS can only provide so many) and their taxes go up 100-300 mill isk/month. Nobody is going to care about a 2% increase on the cost of a public slot if taxes go from zip to 300 mill/ month. But having to haul ore, minerals, and goods via freighter - hundreds of jumps daily - just to maintain my playstyle is a deal-breaker. I can't live in my POS. My least-favorite activity in EVE is piloting the damn freighter. I start yawning within 2 jumps. I hate that thing. I haven't yet begun to complain if this is made reality.

This whole debate just confuses me. People are talking about raising taxes to combat inflation while PLEX adds isk to the economy. They're debating a lack of public slots and low-end minerals in null as imbalanced (we should be able to produce what we need!) when the game was designed that way. (No sec is supposed to have everything it needs. What players need is to interact. Success in this game should not be defined as emancipation from EVE.) They're pointing at the number of public slots in high sec as evidence of said imbalance w/o taking into acct. the miniscule t1 mineral cost of occupying one, nor the number a single player/corp can use/need. Security isn't being discussed as a possible reason many folks live under high-sec's umbrella. And all of the proposed solutions would negatively impact my gameplay into apocalypse while curiously enriching folks in null.

The more I learn about these issues, the less I understand this debate.

Serious question: Is this what they call metagaming?

YK


This is not the problem you perceive it to be. If the building / refining slots get a 10% tax, the price simply goes up 10%. Eventually, those with mass productions in POSs would be able to undercut your price by 10%, basically meaning that a really dedicated indy corp would make prices you can't compete with due to the added risk of having a war deccable corp with POSs online.

Sounds like risk vs reward to me. You say that the game is as it is right now because it was designed like that... good for you for pointing out the obvious, but something being as is for any amount of time does not make it right. It just took it's time to become so evidently wrong.

You say you don't have a free slot anyway within 6 jumps. 6 jumps is nothing mate. I'm pretty sure you'll have slots within a couple of days if you queue up your build orders. Try going out and actually try to work some industry out in nullsec. That's a pain. You need to get 3/5 JF runs just to get the compressed trit you need to build your capital of choice. Seriously, don't even say that it causes you pain to have to do 6 jumps in empire! HTFU!

Also, PLEX adds exactly ZERO isk to the economy mate. Learn a bit about faucets and sinks. PLEX creates no isk. Insurances do. NPC Bounties do. Mission payouts do. Plex is just an item being traded for isk.
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#722 - 2013-03-02 23:31:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Yonis Kador
No no, there are slots available within 6 jumps. But I'm not going to set up shop in a system where 90 percent of the slots are already occupied. I need 50 just for my game and even using that many, I'm not killing anything isk-wise. Build times on t1 ships/gear can take weeks.

I really thought PLEX contributed to inflation. But you're right, after thinking about it, that's probably not the case - its an item that appears out of nowhere and isk isn't created - it's only moved around - so I concede that's not something I should've written. I type at nearly 100 wpm so sometimes my words get ahead of my train of thought...

Still doesn't change my opinion on most of these topics though.

YK
Stray Bullets
Perkone
Caldari State
#723 - 2013-03-02 23:47:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Stray Bullets
Yonis Kador wrote:
No no, there are slots available within 6 jumps. But I'm not going to set up shop in a system where 90 percent of the slots are already occupied. I need 50 just for my game and even using that many, I'm not killing anything isk-wise. Build times on t1 ships/gear can take weeks.

I really thought PLEX contributed to inflation. But you're right, after thinking about it, that's probably not the case - its an item that appears out of nowhere and isk isn't created - it's only moved around - so I concede that's not something I should've written.

Still doesn't change my opinion on most of these topics though.

YK


I'm just going to paste some info from EVElopedia.

Amarr Factory Outpost
Corporation offices: 4
Manufacturing (booster/other) slots: 10/20

So your notion of balanced is that you alone require more than double the amount of slots that a Factory Outpost has (stock!). And you don't perceive this as a problem? :) The fact you have those slots available to you, when others have to conquer space, build an outpost, protect said space and then haul tons of crap in to be able to use HALF of what you say you need doesn't strike you as unbalanced?

Can you see what's wrong with that picture or are you unable to put out an unbiased opinion? :) I live in empire, but at least I know why I do it :)
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#724 - 2013-03-03 00:10:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Yonis Kador
SB, I wouldn't dream of pretending that my opinion is unbiased. Of course its biased. The proposed solutions I've read would change my gameplay so fundamentally, I'd be playing a different game entirely. I'm passionate about this game, I enjoy logging in, and I don't want that to change. I can only contribute to this topic by giving a testimonial as to how those proposed changes would affect me personally - and the answer is negatively.

But you and I are operating under different base assumptions about EVE. Whereas you seem to think a lack of slots in null is evidence of imbalance, I've suggested that this is by design - both to foster conflict and specifically to ensure that null cannot produce "everything it needs." The game was designed for null to produce things on site that cannot be produced elsewhere but it wasn't intended to be self-sufficient. Trade with high sec is required. You don't get to leave 80% of the other characters behind and never come back. (And btw, I have no issue with increasing the number of slots on an outpost. It's all the buff null/ nerf high suggestions that would destroy my own gameplay I take issue with. If there's a way for everybody to be happy - I'm all for it.)

I can't possibly hope to write a dissertation on null economics. But I can point out that simply the number of a thing (characters/slots) in an area, in and of itself, is not evidence of game imbalance in the sense that the game is broken and needs fixing.

It was purposefully created that way. And I haven't seen a single reason stated yet that says why the game needs to be changed now except a cacaphony of wanting to have cake and also eat said cake.

YK

EDIT: Oh, and one more thing while I'm being all social and stuff, were this a topic about null that didn't suggest every 3 posts new ways to destroy my gameplay, I never would've commented. I avoid discussing null topics because I'm unqualified. I'm only here because some of these proposed solutions would alter my game in a way that I'm not sure I would be able to adapt to...and that's simply not something I can allow to transpire without comment.
Celly Smunt
Neutin Local LLC
#725 - 2013-03-03 00:14:45 UTC
Stray Bullets wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Stray Bullets wrote:
Industry needs to be phased out of NPC stations and into POSs ... if it makes people happer, allow small refineries in POSs in 0.5 systems. Make it a conflict driver! ;)

Wait.

First we need to nerf wardecs more.


Wardecs seem fine imo. Any serious industrial would need a POS, thus required to be in a corp that you can't just hop out of due to said POSs, so it would balance itself out quite well.



likes on both this and the reply to me.

Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator.
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
#726 - 2013-03-03 00:18:06 UTC
Primary Me wrote:
Nexus Day wrote:
Becuase the Congo is more dangerous than North America I should be able to make the same or better income working there.

Am I getting this right?

If you're going to bring RL into this then yes, there are many dangerous parts of the world where fortunes can be made but with a greater risk.

Take a look at Gold mining, there's big money to be made in South America and Africa because of the lack of any environmental or health and safety regulations or formal taxes, so gold can be ripped out of the ground with a bigger profit than doing it in the US, however this comes with the risk of catching some horrible disease, being killed by bandits, kidnapped by any one of a dozen different terrorist groups, being shut down by corrupt government/militia forces for not paying the correct bribes or simply being run off your claim by a neigbouring miner, with no recourse to any sort of law.

Risk v Reward

But in general and in 99.9% of cases no. The reason is the governments of said nations do not do a good job of protecting their citizens and resources.

So null does have a resource unavailable in high sec.

But in turn if null wants more people there the answer is not to force them there, it is to make it safer so that people will go there as an organic process. You can't ask CCP for a sandbox then not take any responsibility for outcomes you can control.
Primary Me
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#727 - 2013-03-03 00:33:28 UTC
Yonis Kador wrote:
all the suggestions that would destroy my own gameplay I take issue with.

I was going to give a number of reasons why the game as a whole would benefit from more industry being performed in null, but after reading your statement above I realised it would be a waste of time as, apparently, it's all about you
Primary Me
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#728 - 2013-03-03 00:36:18 UTC
Nexus Day wrote:
Primary Me wrote:
Nexus Day wrote:
Becuase the Congo is more dangerous than North America I should be able to make the same or better income working there.

Am I getting this right?

If you're going to bring RL into this then yes, there are many dangerous parts of the world where fortunes can be made but with a greater risk.

Take a look at Gold mining, there's big money to be made in South America and Africa because of the lack of any environmental or health and safety regulations or formal taxes, so gold can be ripped out of the ground with a bigger profit than doing it in the US, however this comes with the risk of catching some horrible disease, being killed by bandits, kidnapped by any one of a dozen different terrorist groups, being shut down by corrupt government/militia forces for not paying the correct bribes or simply being run off your claim by a neigbouring miner, with no recourse to any sort of law.

Risk v Reward

But in general and in 99.9% of cases no. The reason is the governments of said nations do not do a good job of protecting their citizens and resources.

So null does have a resource unavailable in high sec.

But in turn if null wants more people there the answer is not to force them there, it is to make it safer so that people will go there as an organic process. You can't ask CCP for a sandbox then not take any responsibility for outcomes you can control.

The protection factor is the other side of the coin, generally more industry will require more protection, which, it is hoped, will cause more conflict/PVP that may break the blue stalemate in null today.
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#729 - 2013-03-03 00:37:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Tardbar
Primary Me wrote:
Yonis Kador wrote:
all the suggestions that would destroy my own gameplay I take issue with.

I was going to give a number of reasons why the game as a whole would benefit from more industry being performed in null, but after reading your statement above I realised it would be a waste of time as, apparently, it's all about you


Why not more industry in lowsec and WH space? Simply giving industrial output multipliers to null only benefits those in alliances while leaving those who do not wish to participate in alliances out in the cold.

We could come to a comprimise by increasing the number of WH systems and giving the same industry buff to those systems (as well as low) as you did to null.

Primary Me wrote:
The protection factor is the other side of the coin, generally more industry will require more protection, which, it is hoped, will cause more conflict/PVP that may break the blue stalemate in null today.


Simply increasing the industrial output in null will not result in more system turnovers. I suspect you would have to change the way Sov works in general before that would happen.

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
Stray Bullets
Perkone
Caldari State
#730 - 2013-03-03 00:40:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Stray Bullets
Yonis Kador wrote:
SB, I wouldn't dream of pretending that my opinion is unbiased. Of course its biased. The proposed solutions I've read would change my gameplay so fundamentally, I'd be playing a different game entirely. I'm passionate about this game, I enjoy logging in, and I don't want that to change. I can only contribute to this topic by giving a testimonial as to how those proposed changes would affect me personally - and the answer is negatively.

But you and I are operating under different base assumptions about EVE. Whereas you seem to think a lack of slots in null is evidence of imbalance, I've suggested that this is by design - both to foster conflict and specifically to ensure that null cannot produce "everything it needs." The game was designed for null to produce things on site that cannot be produced elsewhere but it wasn't intended to be self-sufficient. Trade with high sec is required. You don't get to leave 80% of the other characters behind and never come back. (And btw, I have no issue with increasing the number of slots on an outpost. It's all the buff null/ nerf high suggestions that would destroy my own gameplay I take issue with. If there's a way for everybody to be happy - I'm all for it.)

I can't possibly hope to write a dissertation on null economics. But I can point out that simply the number of a thing (characters/slots) in an area, in and of itself, is not evidence of game imbalance in the sense that the game is broken and needs fixing.

It was purposefully created that way. And I haven't seen a single reason stated yet that says why the game needs to be changed now except a cacaphony of wanting to have cake and also eat said cake.

YK


The reason this thread is called "nerf hisec" is because empire space just does everything that lowsec and nullsec do, regarding industry at least. If that wasn't bad enough, it does it with less risk and with higher efficiency facilities.

There's no point in going out to nullsec for industry if you have the best of all worlds in empire. Simply makes no sense. I've lived in null, wspace, lowsec and now empire and there's not even any kind of doubt that empire space is hands down the best space to live in if you're a indy player, with the exception of PI.

My original sugestion had 2 parts, where you'd have reduced hability from nullsec alliances to haul everything to and from empire and you'd have a motivation factor to empire dwelling indy players to move out to nullsec in the form of reduced efficiency in empire, while using NPC facilities. The other part would be actually reversing the efficiency on the NPC stations vs the nullsec outposts.

Nullsec needs to have more, empire needs to have less. Plain and simple. Reward must be equivalent to the risk. At the moment there's no risk in empire and there's no reward in nullsec.

This needs to change :) If you can't see why, then I can't explain it any other way. Sorry
forestwho
Doomheim
#731 - 2013-03-03 00:43:20 UTC
I proposed null sec station buffing long time ago in F&I forum section under an alt in detail. It completly balanced null and high sec as it will be chaeper to produce in null. So less ppl in high and more in 0.0.

Instead of the chain high to null it will be null to high and thus buffing 0.0 nerfing high with lots of ectra features, like moar ppl everywhere!
Frying Doom
#732 - 2013-03-03 00:44:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Yonis Kador wrote:
SB, I wouldn't dream of pretending that my opinion is unbiased. Of course its biased. The proposed solutions I've read would change my gameplay so fundamentally, I'd be playing a different game entirely. I'm passionate about this game, I enjoy logging in, and I don't want that to change. I can only contribute to this topic by giving a testimonial as to how those proposed changes would affect me personally - and the answer is negatively.

But you and I are operating under different base assumptions about EVE. Whereas you seem to think a lack of slots in null is evidence of imbalance, I've suggested that this is by design - both to foster conflict and specifically to ensure that null cannot produce "everything it needs." The game was designed for null to produce things on site that cannot be produced elsewhere but it wasn't intended to be self-sufficient. Trade with high sec is required. You don't get to leave 80% of the other characters behind and never come back. (And btw, I have no issue with increasing the number of slots on an outpost. It's all the buff null/ nerf high suggestions that would destroy my own gameplay I take issue with. If there's a way for everybody to be happy - I'm all for it.)

I can't possibly hope to write a dissertation on null economics. But I can point out that simply the number of a thing (characters/slots) in an area, in and of itself, is not evidence of game imbalance in the sense that the game is broken and needs fixing.

It was purposefully created that way. And I haven't seen a single reason stated yet that says why the game needs to be changed now except a cacaphony of wanting to have cake and also eat said cake.

YK

EDIT: Oh, and one more thing while I'm being all social and stuff, were this a topic about null that didn't suggest every 3 posts new ways to destroy my gameplay, I never would've commented. I avoid discussing null topics because I'm unqualified. I'm only here because some of these proposed solutions would alter my game in a way that I'm not sure I would be able to adapt to...and that's simply not something I can allow to transpire without comment.

I think the have their cake and eat it too is currently the problem with hi-sec.

In high sec I have the choice of buying all the bits of a POS setting it up, paying for it monthly and receiving my goods 25% faster or I can pay a pittance wait an extra couple of hours and get the same thing.

This gives no real incentive for Industrialists to progress anong a chain where a dedicated industrialist whith POS facilities has the ability to manufacture goods cheaper than one renting someone else's facilities.

Or take refine being an industrialist I have a perfect refine at a lot of stations, it took me a few weeks but now I have it for good or I can put up a refinery in lo-sec ect.. and lose 25% of my minerals.

So from my point of view POS need to be better and cheaper than those renting someone else's gear and refining in Hi-sec needs a nerf while allowing POS refinaries into Hi-sec to permit those who out lay the capital to recieve the rewards.

As to null and every where else

it should be Rewards = level of risk * capital expenditure. So lo-sec should be more profitable than hi. Null more profitable than lo-sec and WH more profitable than Null. From bottom up income sources.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#733 - 2013-03-03 00:44:48 UTC
Primary Me wrote:
I was going to give a number of reasons why the game as a whole would benefit from more industry being performed in null, but after reading your statement above I realised it would be a waste of time as, apparently, it's all about you


Yonis Kador wrote:
If there's a way for everybody to be happy - I'm all for it.)


lol Yep. All about me. Big smile

Challenging assumptions being presented as fact, asking questions, and attempting to argue an opposing view, is actually healthy for debate.

YK
Primary Me
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#734 - 2013-03-03 00:46:25 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Primary Me wrote:
Yonis Kador wrote:
all the suggestions that would destroy my own gameplay I take issue with.

I was going to give a number of reasons why the game as a whole would benefit from more industry being performed in null, but after reading your statement above I realised it would be a waste of time as, apparently, it's all about you


Why not more industry in lowsec and WH space? Simply giving industrial output multipliers to null only benefits those in alliances while leaving those who do not wish to participate in alliances out in the cold.

We could come to a comprimise by increasing the number of WH systems and giving the same industry buff to those systems (as well as low) as you did to null.

Primary Me wrote:
The protection factor is the other side of the coin, generally more industry will require more protection, which, it is hoped, will cause more conflict/PVP that may break the blue stalemate in null today.


Simply increasing the industrial output in null will not result in more system turnovers. I suspect you would have to change the way Sov works in general before that would happen.

Well, this thread is primarily about null v hi, hence the lack of much discussion on low. I agree low also needs looking at, but low comes with a whole host of other problems and will be a tougher nut to crack.

Any changes to the POS system I would imagine will also affect industry in WH space as well.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#735 - 2013-03-03 01:10:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
RubyPorto wrote:

EVE Makes absolutely no attempt at realism.


It does not in the features where players would be totally lost if they were, vector and gravity based space travel is very hard, I have tried it in a simulator. People would spend more time trying to go in the wanted direction than paying attention to what happens.

In fact, EvE is played by many because of its realism in a lot of other features.


RubyPorto wrote:

the idea that High risk activities come with inherently high rewards (in RL, high risk activities have higher rewards because fewer people do them), and so on.


Firemen, police men, mine workers would have a talk about "high rewards" for their quite high risk activities.

In RL and EvE, people *try* getting the best reward at a minimum risk, but that's often just impossible and compromises must be found. EvE too, cannot be a WoW clone with a canned path, a theme park carrying you from the obvious starter system to the obvious "end game raid instance" located in null sec. The day EvE becomes like this, EvE will stop being worth playing, a sci-fi theme park is as bad as a sword and board theme park.
There HAVE to be best options spread in every space, otherwise all just flock to the obvious canned path.
You don't see how this is as bad as having the current hi sec, but I do.


RubyPorto wrote:

The fact is, CCP has said that they want Nullsec industry to be lucrative. "Oh, I can save a little bit on transport costs" is not "Lucrative."


Apparently "lucrative" for CCP has a well defined meaning that does not match with yours. Actually they nuke-nerfed null sec content that was really "lucrative".


RubyPorto wrote:

Also, how do you propose making Nullsec production of T1 items cheaper than HS's free production of T1 items? At the moment, Nullsec is pretty much limited to making T1 Battleships cheaper than importing them through the magic of mineral compression, but that's not quite what the goal is, is it?


When cost becomes similar, then logistics become the stumbling block, like in RL. And like in RL, logistics should play a major role, not be cheaply bypassed. Segregate the markets, not make them all identical. Making markets not segregated and identical has created the Jita monster while heavily dampening all the other hubs.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#736 - 2013-03-03 01:14:03 UTC
Primary Me wrote:
Nexus Day wrote:
Becuase the Congo is more dangerous than North America I should be able to make the same or better income working there.

Am I getting this right?

If you're going to bring RL into this then yes, there are many dangerous parts of the world where fortunes can be made but with a greater risk.

Take a look at Gold mining, there's big money to be made in South America and Africa because of the lack of any environmental or health and safety regulations or formal taxes, so gold can be ripped out of the ground with a bigger profit than doing it in the US, however this comes with the risk of catching some horrible disease, being killed by bandits, kidnapped by any one of a dozen different terrorist groups, being shut down by corrupt government/militia forces for not paying the correct bribes or simply being run off your claim by a neigbouring miner, with no recourse to any sort of law.

Risk v Reward


Yeah the grunts spending all their day legs deep in muddy water are really going to get rich Roll

Oh wait, like it was for Klondike, those who got rich were mining pick vendors and gold traders.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#737 - 2013-03-03 01:19:12 UTC
Stray Bullets wrote:

Industry needs to be phased out of NPC stations and into POSs ... if it makes people happer, allow small refineries in POSs in 0.5 systems. Make it a conflict driver! ;)


You apparently never tried finding a free 0.5 sec office slot. Depending on season it can be really hard, and no, wardeccing somebody does not make them sign off an office rental.

So, once you put up the 7-8 POSes and the system is full, where do you find slots? It'd make hi sec slots even more limited than null.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Frying Doom
#738 - 2013-03-03 02:47:59 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Stray Bullets wrote:

Industry needs to be phased out of NPC stations and into POSs ... if it makes people happer, allow small refineries in POSs in 0.5 systems. Make it a conflict driver! ;)


You apparently never tried finding a free 0.5 sec office slot. Depending on season it can be really hard, and no, wardeccing somebody does not make them sign off an office rental.

So, once you put up the 7-8 POSes and the system is full, where do you find slots? It'd make hi sec slots even more limited than null.

Their are loads of free office space in 0.5 systems, just not in the ones close to trade hubs, to get closer you need to use a 0.6 or 0.7 system and they really have a lot of space available, so the should just allow refineries where ever you can anchor a POS.

Player owned should always be better than NPC free.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Casshern Voliffe
Age of Extinction
#739 - 2013-03-03 03:02:40 UTC
Nullsec , the ultimate carebear space. Where a war breaks out once a year because alliances get bored of farming isk.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#740 - 2013-03-03 05:45:02 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Stray Bullets wrote:

Industry needs to be phased out of NPC stations and into POSs ... if it makes people happer, allow small refineries in POSs in 0.5 systems. Make it a conflict driver! ;)


You apparently never tried finding a free 0.5 sec office slot. Depending on season it can be really hard, and no, wardeccing somebody does not make them sign off an office rental.

So, once you put up the 7-8 POSes and the system is full, where do you find slots? It'd make hi sec slots even more limited than null.

Their are loads of free office space in 0.5 systems, just not in the ones close to trade hubs, to get closer you need to use a 0.6 or 0.7 system and they really have a lot of space available, so the should just allow refineries where ever you can anchor a POS.

Player owned should always be better than NPC free.

No, highsec should be like mount olympus, where the gods (CONCORD) preside over their heavenly realm.

All the nullsec dogs can scratch in the dirt like the violent animals they are.

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 ?