EVE General Discussion

Ali and Chitsa are leading the CSM conversation with CCP in the probing/exploration changes. Not all of us have to be involved experts on every topic

If you don't think that nullsec isn't going to be a major discussion topic with CCP this year, then I have good news for you: it is.

Prior to that discussion starting, I am interested in explaining and discussing the viewpoints that we'll be bringing to CCP. That a vibrant, player-centric (as opposed to structure-centric) active and diverse 0.0 is essential to the future of EVE.

Trashing the nullsec logistics supplyline before that goal is acheived because some people who don't live in 0.0 are ~mad that 6 billion ISK jump freighters are generally flown cautiously and their pilots avoid losing their ships to the best of their ability will not advance that goal in any way.

After the goal is achieved, it will become a moot point, because the level of traffic between 0.0 and hi-sec will fall dramatically, and the traffic between and within various parts of 0.0 will likewise increase.

Sure, upgrade the outposts - there is no good reason not to. But don't claim that null can't support itself when what you mean is that it actually can but nullsec players are just a little too lazy to deal with CCP's horrible POS mechanics. And let's face it, your points 2 and 3 are not very compelling. The risk is absolutely minimal unless you throw POSes up on the front lines of a conflict and the cost is entirely trivial if a POS is being used efficiently at its full capacity.

That's not an argument for keeping easy logistics to high-sec, though. Quite the opposite. What you are identifying is a consequence of those easy logistics. I agree with you that it would be silly to build in null when it is so easy to build in high and ship it to null but what that tells us is that it is the easy logistics that are undermining the point of building in null. It doesn't tell us that null couldn't be self-sufficient if the pipeline was cut off.



Not really.

This is why I tell people to consider human nature. You are looking at the issue backwards.

Changing the logistics doesn't make null industry any less crappy or risky. Nerf logistics and people can STILL wipe you null POS industry out, leaving you with only that which you can do in stations, which themselves are at least conquerable if not destroyable. End result is few to no people building stuff in null in any volume (as it is now) AND the industrialists in high sec have no way to access the null market that everyone is living off of now. Consequences of that could include less pvp in null as it becomes too expensive and what pvp is down is with less expensive ships.

You'd literally through a giant monkey wrench into the EVE economy and have the exact opposite effect of what you want to. It just doesn't work.

The currently too easy/safe logistics and power projection in EVE is (again) a necessary Evil that at least keeps the wheels of the economy churning (ie null sec pvp groups can at least still throw ships at each other). It CAN be changed, but the wrong changes to a delicate and complex system influence by human nature could mean absolute disaster.

It's a ridiculous 'solution'.

OK I'll change the line to "Nullsec can't support itself with products that would have a TPC of less than 2 or 3 times what they cost in hi-sec".

If you think it's likely that players - you know, the average grunts who don't have 10 personal R64s and a Titan collection - will stay in a nullsec where they're forced to buy battleship hulls at 600 mill a pop when their income is barely higher than it would be in hi-sec, then I'd be delighted to hear your explaination of why you think that is.

Let's reverse the situation: suppose I take a proposal to CCP that all production and research slots be removed from NPC stations. After all, it's possible for people in empire to build what they need in POS, right? Would you call people objecting to the change "lazy" as well?

And again, exactly the same argument applies to Empire. So would you advocate removing all slots from NPC stations?

Because if not, it seems like you're saying that it's fine for 0.0 manufacturers to operate under appalling comparitive disadvantages and you want NPC space to have every possible advantage.

Why would anyone make anything in Sov 0.0 under your program? Why would anyone even live there?

Here's the thing - comparisons to highsec prices are meaningless in a context where null is a self-sufficient holistic system. So, why would a battleship hull cost 600mil if built in null? Certainly not due to the additional costs that come from operating a POS. I can't quite remember how many BS arrays one can have at a single large tower but if memory serves it is either three or four, each of which can pump out, what, seven? eight? battleships a day. Worst case, that's 21 BS per tower per day, or 630 per month. The cost of building at a POS is going to add less than 1mil to each of those hulls.

So, why would the hull price be higher? Mineral costs are what you're thinking of, I guess. But if the costs are going to be that much higher because the mins are mined in null then the income from mining in null will also rise proportionately, and won't stay the same as it is in high-sec. Whatever the cause of the additional cost, the point is that this extra isk will simply circulate through the nullsec economy and will end up in the hands of nullsec players. If mineral costs are going to be three times higher then miners are going to be three times better off. Disconnecting the null economy from the high sec economy simply means that each will find its own equilibrium.




Yes. I think that would be entirely appropriate. The whole business of risk-free cheap building in stations when mechanics have been implemented to do it properly in a fully player driven way is ridiculous. It's a holdover from the days before POSes were introduced and maintaining the option simply removes opportunities for conflict and player interaction from the game. I can see a reason to have some very minimal facilities available for brand new players but, beyond that, they don't seem to serve a purpose beyond making life unnecessarily easy for people who want 100% security.

Not really a useful representation of my claims so I'll pass on commenting on it. It still treats things as a competition between high and null where I'm suggesting that the two should have their economies effectively decoupled.

Edit - In any case, there is absolutely no sense in which someone in nullsec manufacturing from a POS will be at a 97% disadvantage to someone in nullsec manufacturing from a station or from someone in highsec manufacturing from eaither a station or a POS. You are turning a capacity disadvantage into a qualitative disadvantage where no qualitative disadvantage exists. And, in fact, no real capacity disadvantage exists either, since you have the tools to build as much as you want but you just don't want to go to the effort of using them. If you did use them the capacity advantage would disappear and there would be no qualitative disadvantage in any case.

Still and all, I really have no problem with expanding the slots in null, I'm just confused why you all make out that this capacity issue is a big deal rather than a factor that can be resolved at almost no cost and at a merely minor inconvenience of having to use CCP's POS mechanics.

You can't "give them no choice" in a video game they can uninstall, dude.

Down that argumentative route madness lies. Every single game mechanics restricts and removes choices so please don't make out that the suggestion that a choice should be restricted or removed is anything novel at all.