These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Idea for moon goo changes

First post
Author
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1 - 2011-10-27 10:53:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Soldarius
As most folks know, a single decent moon can feed an entire alliance, albeit a small one. Entire wars are fought over these static and passive resources.

Moons are not evenly distributed across the universe, which is acceptable for the purpose of keeping things interesting and giving groups reasons to attack other groups. However, moon mining is only allowed in 0.3 s or lower sec systems. In addition, a POS goes through multiple reinforcement timers before it can be destroyed, which in and of itself is a task only for large groups with either a few hundred BS over a number of hours, or a bunch of capital ships. This means that any group that wants to take a valuable moon must be able to play supercaps online.

How exactly is a smaller alliance supposed to do this, when in order to get the supers they have to have ****-tons of cash, which can only be had from moon-goo, or illegal means (RMT/botting)? The only options are to either give up or join with another large group that is already at war with them, which more often than not, does not result in the smaller group becoming bigger and better, but just becoming subservient to the larger entity, thus losing their own identity.

My proposal is simple. Raise the security status limit on moon harvesting arrays to somewhere in the hisec range. 0.5 or 6 would be a good place to start.

In preparation for this thread, I did some spreadsheet crafting data from [url]evemaps.dotlan.net/region/moons[/url]. I counted up all the moons in k-space (excepting Jove space since it's inaccessible) and compared that to all the moons available for mining.

In accessible k-space there are 225,079 moons. 162,440 are in .3 or lower systems. 143,400 of those are in nulsec. Leaving 81,679 in losec. The current mining availability rate is 72.17%. By upping the limit from 0.3 to 0.4, we would go from 72.17% to 77.39%. An increase of 11749 mineable moons.

At this point I would like to point out that just because you can anchor a moon harvesting array, it doesn't mean you'll get something out of it. The high-end moons are called R64s for a reason. Theoretically, every 64th moon should be an R64. But ti varies from region to region. So, you never really can tell.

Moving on, raising the limit to 0.5 increases the number of available moons up to 186,475, an increase of 24,035 from the current amount, or an 82.85% availability. Going up to 0.6 gives a similar increase of roughly another 12,000 moons. From there the increases start to drop off. 0.7 and 0.8 give about 10,000 moons, and 0.9 gives about 7,000. Including the 1.0 systems give only the remaining few hundred additional moons.

Reasons and Effects:

By raising the sec limit on moon mining, this aspect of Eve will become available to a much larger percentage of the population. I'm sure many industrialists would be tickled pink to try out moon mining. More interest is good, m'kay?

An increase in supply of moon goo would result in a drop in moon goo prices. This would be followed by a drop of T2 prices.

It would break the nulsec alliiances' monopoly on moon goo. In case you are wondering, yes there are nice metals in hisec. I personally probed every moon in one average 0.6 system and found 8 R16 moons of 3 different types.

An increase in demand for POSes will stimulate PI production for both POS modules and fuel. This will result in a temporary price spike until supply catches up with demand.

Finding high-end moons in hisec will result in wars. More wars will stimulate the economy. These wars will not include supers, jump bridges, or any of the trappings of nulsec warfare. (\o/) If the nul alliances want to secure those moons, they will have to bring BS fleets to hisec and war dec the corp holding it. Or lose their entire fleet to CONCORDOKKEN. Personally, I would love to see that. The defenders will have to learn more about fleet warfare. Those who don't wish to participate in the new hisec moon goo wars won't have to. They can simply fly on by under the watchful eye of Concord.

This will also expose hisec dwellers to large scale warfare, possibly stirring their interest in nulsec life. Either that or they will go hide in a dark corner of the Captain's Cell and play with their barbie dolls.

This change can be implemented very easily (it's a single entry on a single item in the database), have a wide ranging effect, and can be done in increments due to the security status of the different systems.

The tl;dr: let people moon mine in hisec. It'll shake things up without breaking things. It can be done gradually or all at once. Less blob. More fun! And just maybe, more subs.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2011-10-27 12:44:58 UTC
hell no

if you want more moons put them in w-space, but no moons for highsec

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Zephyrus II
Cardboard Enterprises
#3 - 2011-10-27 12:52:19 UTC
You see small alliances grabbing moons, I see large null-sec alliances bringing 200+ man battleship fleets to high sec for the purpose of taking all the valuble moons anyway. Nothing will change; the tech will still be ours, the R64 will still be ours, the only thing it can do is make us richer.

I support this!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2011-10-27 13:11:20 UTC
I was going to comment on how the point of having a resource be limited to certain areas and completely absent from others was to incite conflict, and that the rarer something was, the higher incentive more people would have to try to get some themselves, but then I stumbled across this:

Soldarius wrote:
These wars will not include supers, jump bridges

Supers are getting nerfed, so they won't be that overpowered anymore, but ... jump bridges? What?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#5 - 2011-10-27 13:42:00 UTC
itt a lazy worthless highseccer hopes one day he can have a tech moon without working for it at all

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#6 - 2011-10-27 14:28:44 UTC
I'm gonna give this a few more hours in the hopes of getting some intelligent responses.



http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#7 - 2011-10-27 14:53:39 UTC
why would anyone bother giving an intelligent response to an unintelligent idea

this is a moronic idea and you should be embarassed you posted it

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

HELIC0N ONE
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2011-10-27 15:27:46 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
In addition, a POS goes through multiple reinforcement timers before it can be destroyed, which in and of itself is a task only for large groups with either a few hundred BS over a number of hours, or a bunch of capital ships. This means that any group that wants to take a valuable moon must be able to play supercaps online.

How exactly is a smaller alliance supposed to do this, when in order to get the supers they have to have ****-tons of cash, which can only be had from moon-goo, or illegal means (RMT/botting)?


If only there was some sort of rebalance in the pipeline which would lessen the effects of "Supercaps Online" and allow groups other than supercap-blobbers the opportunity to compete for resources.

If only.
Elise DarkStar
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2011-10-27 15:45:57 UTC
Did this guy really suggest hisec moongoo? What an *******.
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#10 - 2011-10-27 15:47:28 UTC
I don't see a good reason not to extend moon mining to .4 systems, but highsec seems like a bad idea, especially given the current broken state of wardec mechanics.

I also don't support opening up w-space moons, as they would be much less vulnerable than 0.0 moons.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

Ladie Harlot
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#11 - 2011-10-27 18:18:11 UTC
OP should be banned for trolling so badly.

The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet.

Feligast
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2011-10-27 19:33:57 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
In addition, a POS goes through multiple reinforcement timers before it can be destroyed.


Uhm.. no, they don't.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#13 - 2011-10-31 04:40:19 UTC
So, the goon position is "You're a trolling idiot." GJ, I'll make sure to take that into consideration.

Two step wrote:
I don't see a good reason not to extend moon mining to .4 systems, but highsec seems like a bad idea, especially given the current broken state of wardec mechanics.

I also don't support opening up w-space moons, as they would be much less vulnerable than 0.0 moons.


I don't have data on w-space moons. So I did not suggest any changes there. But given the number of moons in w-space, I think it would be like doubling the number of metal-bearing moons in Eve. That would definitely crash the moongoo market, unless the rarity of metals in w-space is much worse than in k-space.

You bring up a good point. I also think hisec war-dec mechanics need to be fixed, though I had not given consideration to their impact on hisec moon-mining. Unfortunately, raising the system sec limit to 0.4 would not really change anything imo. It would increase the supply somewhat, but likely not enough to make a difference in the markets. The point was to make moon-mining something people can do without having to play supercaps online at the same time.

For the idea to be effective in the areas I described, it really needs to be extended to hisec. So I guess the discussion we need to explore next is fixing hisec war-dec mechanics.

...

After reading the latest relaxation on war-dec hopping, I don't think it'll happen anytime soon.

/thread I guess :(

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY