These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Gevlon's Second Doozie

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#281 - 2014-10-16 21:33:37 UTC
Vald Tegor wrote:
[
It was kinda my choice to move it. That's right. A choice between
- leaving it in scalding pass, jump cloning home and buying a new one (it's now a NC. station)
- Flying it 50 jumps without support and dying on the way (30mil SRP), then buying a new one
- Paying to have it moved

As I mentioned before there was a move op. I missed it. Real life happens and I schedule EvE around it, not the other way around. It was just one example of how SRP does not cover the entirety of a line member's expenses. The intent of SRP is so that when you lose your ship, you get the money to replace it and fly in the next fleet a few days later. That's it. In my year in the CFC I've spent a couple billion out of pocket on ships and insurance and many of them I have hardly flown.

Furthermore, the "paperwork" you are talking about to reduce cost.. you are literally talking about having guys donate their time to the alliance running around in their jump freighters for hours so they can sell ships to members at jita prices in the ass end of nowhere. That's not how it works. The guys doing the hauling charge you for their effort in getting the equipment there. Or you can buy it in Jita and haul it yourself if you prefer. The alliance covers these expenses for the ships that are actually lost in way of SRP.

What I'm describing in the context of null ratting is a game where hostile ratting systems don't have people ratting, because it's not worth it over income sources that are safer, more consistent and more lucrative. Starving out enemy line members from using their space should be a victory that forces them into travel time and inferior income sources, having an impact on the conflict. As it is, Sov Null is the worst place for a combat pilot to earn money in EvE to begin with. Doesn't that sound completely backwards?


The paperwork i was referring to is the keeping track of who got what for free, as to reduce what you have described, jita sell, nothing more.

Personally i am surprised with the percieved preposterousness of the situation where you are not a member of a alliance , but more or less a employee of it.

Maybe the settled in relationships that enabled huge groups to exist so far are the more pressing problem.

Lucrativity is a matter of perception (apart of maybe incursions being still too high), 20m ticks + possible loot + possible salvage sounds quite good to the average highsec player warping around +-2 systems in a bs, combined with the occasional signature or belt rat, very few are willing and capable to do missions like stoic.

Which reminds me that i dont remember hearing what is suggested as mission rewards for the proposed npc missions, surely it is not suggested that one will get 60mil for a run of the mill 10min mission, is it?
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#282 - 2014-10-16 22:17:45 UTC
Paynus Maiassus wrote:

What I am coming up with in thinking this through is:

1 - I am leaning against occupancy sov as a fix.

2 - I am against increasing wealth per system. Scarcity of wealth drives conflict.

3 - I am against rebalancing moon resources to create locally independent moon goo industries.

4 - I am still aware that null needs a fix. I don't know what it is exactly, but issues of timers and flag planting need to be refined and addressed without moving to a simple occupancy mechanic making sov tougher or easier to take.

5 - there isn't a party out there advocating a system of fixes that I am satisfied with, namely because I can see that every party advocating fixes is not really motivated by making Eve the best game it can be.

These are concrete impressions that I am coming up with that are not a slavish blind devotion to Gevlon (although I think the guy is great) nor an unjustified hatred of the Goons (although I am Grr Goon).




(1) No one has proposed any concrete metrics for occupancy sov. Right now it is a general term for designing a sov system where it is difficult to hold a lot of space that your team does not actively use.


(2) There is a point to scarcity driving conflict. Only to a point though. If taken too far, it ends up with those who have the wealth forever dominating those without it. If you look at the three big blocs today, they were all part of the old Technetium Cartel, and when that was broken they rolled that wealth into dividing nullsec into massive rental empires.


(3) I can see both sides of this. On one side there is the idea of fighting for space with better moons. But on the other side there is letting null develop more complete industry, and allow them to sell more finished goods instead of simply exporting raw materials. And an issue with just doing the export of raw materials is that an alliance just has to control the moon but not the space around it. If it is more geared to value adding in nullsec, that gets them to put more effort into controlling the space to add reaction towers and a factory outpost, mining fleets for the other minerals, freighters moving goods around, etc.

Compare the 2, and you have a system where the defender is just jumping in and out every other week, with fuel and moon goo, taking a straight line to and from highsec. And the other has fuel and moon goo, more fuel and reaction, minerals and finished products all being shipped around in the same space.


(4) Again, no one has any hard ideas on how an occupancy sov system will function. It is just a general idea that unused space should not require almost all the same steps and effort as taking an alliances headquarters system


(5) Eve appeals to a lot of different people for a lot of different reasons. Me personally, I don't really enjoy the spaceship PvP aspect of it. I'm the wrong person to ask about how much HP a sov structure should have. Many people really are into the spaceship PvP, and like the idea of smaller/denser player empires, so they can travel less for more targets. Many also want easier PvE so they can PvE less to PvP more.

So some of these ideas are genuinely put forth because they think it will improve the game as a whole, when you consider that many of these people think the game is solely about shooting other spaceships.


Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#283 - 2014-10-16 23:01:56 UTC
The problem isn't that we're a group of 30,000 that coordinate together to hold territory.

The problem is that the current null mechanics force us to sprawl to support 30,000. CCP has not properly designed nullsec. One single system in null can theoretically support hundred(s) of miners because of null anomalies. That same system can only support a handful of ratting/exploration before the (not awful) sites are gone. If CCP designed better mechanics for ratting/mission income in nullsec, we would have much less need to sprawl for space.

In addition, the reason we don't go invade PL or N3's space is because there is literally no incentive to invade them, and sov warfare mechanics are incredibly boring and awful.

Renting in itself is cheaper than being an actual member corporation of an alliance. Member corporations must pay taxes (usually a % tax, which adds up to be more than a rent fee) AND must contribute pilots in strategic ops. Renting is the best possible opportunity for a newer organization to get a foothold in nullsec, because there is nearly zero risk of having your sov taken over, as the holding coalitions protect their sov. This opportunity has existed for years now, yet people are still sitting in high sec saying that coalitions are keeping people out of null, etc. If a corporation can't survive in a scenario where they are immune from sov loss in null, how do you expect that a corporation would then survive after the coalitions cede some space.

Coalitions only exist as a function of the game mechanics. Eve is designed so that in most cases, a group with more players will beat a group with fewer players. Until the mechanics change so that large groups of players are not mandatory to win, you will always have large groups. Saying that the CFC or any other coalition should disband is like saying AFK cloaking shouldn't exist or that ganking shouldn't be possible in High Sec. They're all part of the mechanics in the game, and if they weren't, then this wouldn't be Eve.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#284 - 2014-10-16 23:11:29 UTC
Barton Breau wrote:
Vald Tegor wrote:
[
It was kinda my choice to move it. That's right. A choice between
- leaving it in scalding pass, jump cloning home and buying a new one (it's now a NC. station)
- Flying it 50 jumps without support and dying on the way (30mil SRP), then buying a new one
- Paying to have it moved

As I mentioned before there was a move op. I missed it. Real life happens and I schedule EvE around it, not the other way around. It was just one example of how SRP does not cover the entirety of a line member's expenses. The intent of SRP is so that when you lose your ship, you get the money to replace it and fly in the next fleet a few days later. That's it. In my year in the CFC I've spent a couple billion out of pocket on ships and insurance and many of them I have hardly flown.

Furthermore, the "paperwork" you are talking about to reduce cost.. you are literally talking about having guys donate their time to the alliance running around in their jump freighters for hours so they can sell ships to members at jita prices in the ass end of nowhere. That's not how it works. The guys doing the hauling charge you for their effort in getting the equipment there. Or you can buy it in Jita and haul it yourself if you prefer. The alliance covers these expenses for the ships that are actually lost in way of SRP.

What I'm describing in the context of null ratting is a game where hostile ratting systems don't have people ratting, because it's not worth it over income sources that are safer, more consistent and more lucrative. Starving out enemy line members from using their space should be a victory that forces them into travel time and inferior income sources, having an impact on the conflict. As it is, Sov Null is the worst place for a combat pilot to earn money in EvE to begin with. Doesn't that sound completely backwards?


The paperwork i was referring to is the keeping track of who got what for free, as to reduce what you have described, jita sell, nothing more.

Personally i am surprised with the percieved preposterousness of the situation where you are not a member of a alliance , but more or less a employee of it.

Maybe the settled in relationships that enabled huge groups to exist so far are the more pressing problem.

Lucrativity is a matter of perception (apart of maybe incursions being still too high), 20m ticks + possible loot + possible salvage sounds quite good to the average highsec player warping around +-2 systems in a bs, combined with the occasional signature or belt rat, very few are willing and capable to do missions like stoic.

Which reminds me that i dont remember hearing what is suggested as mission rewards for the proposed npc missions, surely it is not suggested that one will get 60mil for a run of the mill 10min mission, is it?


A bog standard t2 cruise raven will beat null income. Blitzing missions isnt hard.
Brujo Loco
Brujeria Teologica
#285 - 2014-10-16 23:25:41 UTC
This has been so far one of the most delicious to read (and digest) threads for me in a long while here in EVE. I have enjoyed it greatly and welcome the insights it has provided for me into the game, as I am sure it has for some others.

Just a general +1 for this thread. Excellent reading, fun stuff.

Inner Sayings of BrujoLoco: http://eve-files.com/sig/brujoloco
Lady Areola Fappington
#286 - 2014-10-16 23:33:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Lady Areola Fappington
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
The problem isn't that we're a group of 30,000 that coordinate together to hold territory.

The problem is that the current null mechanics force us to sprawl to support 30,000. CCP has not properly designed nullsec. One single system in null can theoretically support hundred(s) of miners because of null anomalies. That same system can only support a handful of ratting/exploration before the (not awful) sites are gone. If CCP designed better mechanics for ratting/mission income in nullsec, we would have much less need to sprawl for space.

In addition, the reason we don't go invade PL or N3's space is because there is literally no incentive to invade them, and sov warfare mechanics are incredibly boring and awful.

Renting in itself is cheaper than being an actual member corporation of an alliance. Member corporations must pay taxes (usually a % tax, which adds up to be more than a rent fee) AND must contribute pilots in strategic ops. Renting is the best possible opportunity for a newer organization to get a foothold in nullsec, because there is nearly zero risk of having your sov taken over, as the holding coalitions protect their sov. This opportunity has existed for years now, yet people are still sitting in high sec saying that coalitions are keeping people out of null, etc. If a corporation can't survive in a scenario where they are immune from sov loss in null, how do you expect that a corporation would then survive after the coalitions cede some space.

Coalitions only exist as a function of the game mechanics. Eve is designed so that in most cases, a group with more players will beat a group with fewer players. Until the mechanics change so that large groups of players are not mandatory to win, you will always have large groups. Saying that the CFC or any other coalition should disband is like saying AFK cloaking shouldn't exist or that ganking shouldn't be possible in High Sec. They're all part of the mechanics in the game, and if they weren't, then this wouldn't be Eve.



I think you've hit on the main problem with nullsec/renters, in a way. Aside from the "image" of being a "scrub renter", there's no real reason NOT to rent. Part of that comes from ability to project force (which CCP is trying to fix, albeit hamfistedly), and part of it comes from general suck of actually owning sov.


The "rental" system would be a great source of dynamic content, if there were a reason to take sov, plus a means to avoid/mitigate force projection. You'd have renters who decide they're sick of renting, and decide to carve out their own chunk of nullsec and oh wait this spot we're renting looks mighty nice....


To make that happen, you'd need three things. A buff to sov holding to make it more appealing than renting, a nerf to force projection, and the ability for small areas to be vastly more self-sufficient in null than they are now.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#287 - 2014-10-16 23:52:06 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
The problem isn't that we're a group of 30,000 that coordinate together to hold territory.

The problem is that the current null mechanics force us to sprawl to support 30,000. CCP has not properly designed nullsec. One single system in null can theoretically support hundred(s) of miners because of null anomalies. That same system can only support a handful of ratting/exploration before the (not awful) sites are gone. If CCP designed better mechanics for ratting/mission income in nullsec, we would have much less need to sprawl for space.

In addition, the reason we don't go invade PL or N3's space is because there is literally no incentive to invade them, and sov warfare mechanics are incredibly boring and awful.

Renting in itself is cheaper than being an actual member corporation of an alliance. Member corporations must pay taxes (usually a % tax, which adds up to be more than a rent fee) AND must contribute pilots in strategic ops. Renting is the best possible opportunity for a newer organization to get a foothold in nullsec, because there is nearly zero risk of having your sov taken over, as the holding coalitions protect their sov. This opportunity has existed for years now, yet people are still sitting in high sec saying that coalitions are keeping people out of null, etc. If a corporation can't survive in a scenario where they are immune from sov loss in null, how do you expect that a corporation would then survive after the coalitions cede some space.

Coalitions only exist as a function of the game mechanics. Eve is designed so that in most cases, a group with more players will beat a group with fewer players. Until the mechanics change so that large groups of players are not mandatory to win, you will always have large groups. Saying that the CFC or any other coalition should disband is like saying AFK cloaking shouldn't exist or that ganking shouldn't be possible in High Sec. They're all part of the mechanics in the game, and if they weren't, then this wouldn't be Eve.



I think you've hit on the main problem with nullsec/renters, in a way. Aside from the "image" of being a "scrub renter", there's no real reason NOT to rent. Part of that comes from ability to project force (which CCP is trying to fix, albeit hamfistedly), and part of it comes from general suck of actually owning sov.


The "rental" system would be a great source of dynamic content, if there were a reason to take sov, plus a means to avoid/mitigate force protection. You'd have renters who decide they're sick of renting, and decide to carve out their own chunk of nullsec and oh wait this spot we're renting looks mighty nice....


To make that happen, you'd need three things. A buff to sov holding to make it more appealing than renting, a nerf to force projection, and the ability for small areas to be vastly more self-sufficient in null than they are now.


Force projection isnt as big an issue as many think, its what happens when we arrive. Right now our fleets are effectivly immortal vs smaller alliances.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#288 - 2014-10-17 00:00:23 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Force projection isnt as big an issue as many think, its what happens when we arrive. Right now our fleets are effectivly immortal vs smaller alliances.


TL;DR: Nerf logi, really hard.

Anyway, he's right. Whether they can pop up out of nowhere or not, the fact remains that the critical mass of ships required to break sufficient amounts of reps are only available to a small few groups in the game.

If they have to slowboat or not, you're still not going to beat their fleet once they get there.

And that's the real problem.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Lady Areola Fappington
#289 - 2014-10-17 00:15:01 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


Force projection isnt as big an issue as many think, its what happens when we arrive. Right now our fleets are effectivly immortal vs smaller alliances.



I agree, I was just bundling that all up under "force projection". The key to pulling off a nullsec fix is giving a group a reason to hold space, the ability to do it effectively, and a reasonable chance to take it away from it's current owners.


Actually accomplishing this is going to be a touchy thing for CCP. There's no simple "fix" that will accomplish all the above in a fair way.

Personally, I think the buff to sov will be the most important step of the fix. Getting the vast majority of what you need in a small area accomplishes two things. One, there's a reason for a smaller group to take a chunk of space, and two, there's less reason for CFC/PL/(insert huge coalition here) to load up the partybus to come take it back.

I still think there should be a few holes, at least on the industry/production side of the house. A fully independent system/constellation/region would just encourage more turtling.

Along with that, CCP should explore "leeching" as a viable mechanic for nullsec living. A small group rolling in to pillage and burn an otherwise unattended system should be a viable game mechanic, IMO.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard
Tactical Narcotics Team
#290 - 2014-10-17 00:21:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Vald Tegor
Barton Breau wrote:

The paperwork i was referring to is the keeping track of who got what for free, as to reduce what you have described, jita sell, nothing more.

What you get for free, is the rights to use the space your alliance holds. Including countless billions worth of infrastructure upgrades.
Barton Breau wrote:

Personally i am surprised with the percieved preposterousness of the situation where you are not a member of a alliance , but more or less a employee of it.

That's generally what joining a corporation is, isn't it? Welcome to Wal-Mart.

People have been advocating for removal of passive top down income in favor of bottom up farms and fields / occupancy sov for years. That's the whole worker bee getting taxed idea.

Barton Breau wrote:
Maybe the settled in relationships that enabled huge groups to exist so far are the more pressing problem.

Lucrativity is a matter of perception (apart of maybe incursions being still too high), 20m ticks + possible loot + possible salvage sounds quite good to the average highsec player warping around +-2 systems in a bs, combined with the occasional signature or belt rat, very few are willing and capable to do missions like stoic.

Which reminds me that i dont remember hearing what is suggested as mission rewards for the proposed npc missions, surely it is not suggested that one will get 60mil for a run of the mill 10min mission, is it?

20m ticks, IF you get the good site. There is no possible loot. If you loot and salvage, it will take time. That means you will make 13 mil ticks and get something like 4-5 mil in loot and salvage on average. There is no occasional belt rat on top, because time going to belts is time not ratting therefore no ticks. Same with scanning signatures. There is a very rare dread gurista spawn. 3/4 times I warp off before I notice there was one. When I do, travel time to loot the wreck more than negates the bonus bounty and the drop is usually useless.

20m ticks, if you have the right skills. When I first got out there, I was an Amarr focused pilot with no missile skills at all and terrible drone skills. I was shooting lasers at Guristas. I was flying a 2 billion isk nightmare and making somewhere around 13 mil a tick, before ammo costs. I've seen corp members come and go after seeing they get just over 10mil ticks in a HAM legion with perfect skills and can't fly anything "better" for months worth of training.

That's not 20 mil ticks for a few month old character in something like a cruise raven who just started doing level 4's. Your "average high sec player" will not make that. That's my (not perfect) HAM tengu pilot after subtracting ammo costs. That's not counting the cost of replacing lost pve ships which are not reimbursable, and usually not insured. That's not counting the cost of replacing drones. In high sec you don't warp off and leave your drones behind because of hostiles.
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#291 - 2014-10-17 00:22:36 UTC  |  Edited by: PotatoOverdose
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
The problem isn't that we're a group of 30,000 that coordinate together to hold territory.

It definitely becomes a problem at some point. You could argue that we haven't reached that point *yet*, but at some point it's definitely a problem.

Trivial example: There are 30,000 people in all of nullsec, and a group of 30,000 coordinate together to hold sov. You've got a problem.You can't just arbitrarily say that X thousand players setting each other blue isn't a problem because that statement just doesn't hold true for all X.

The current situation (30k in one coalition, 25k in another, 24k renters , maybe 1k-2k semi-relevant independents, numbers might be off by a bit but w/e) may or may not be a problem. Certainly seemed a problem a month ago when everyone was b*tching about ~no content~.

Depends on whether or not the first three groups are busy buying and selling roses, I suppose. P
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#292 - 2014-10-17 00:25:42 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
The key to pulling off a nullsec fix is giving a group a reason to hold space, the ability to do it effectively, and a reasonable chance to take it away from it's current owners.


The last two of those are mutually exclusive.

In order to have people desire to live there, there needs to be an incentive to do so.

This means that "farm and fields", for lack of a better term, need to be defensible. Otherwise there is no reason to lay down roots if some day trippers can just burn it down with a couple dozen interceptors.

The attacker should have an uphill battle. But in exchange for that uphill battle, there should be a treasure chest at the top of the hill. Right now there is an uphill battle and the dubious honor of renting out space at the top.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#293 - 2014-10-17 00:32:59 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
The problem isn't that we're a group of 30,000 that coordinate together to hold territory.

It definitely becomes a problem at some point. You could argue that we haven't reached that point *yet*, but at some point it's definitely a problem.

Trivial example: There are 30,000 people in nullsec, and a group of 30,000 coordinate together to hold sov. You've got a problem.You can't just arbitrarily say that X thousand players setting each other blue isn't a problem because that statement just doesn't hold true for all X.

The current situation (30k in one coalition, 25k in another, 24k renters , maybe 1k-2k semi-relevant independents, numbers might be off by a bit but w/e) may or may not be a problem. Certainly seemed a problem a month ago when everyone was b*tching about ~no content~.

Depends on whether or not the first three groups are busy buying and selling roses, I suppose. P


5 idiots are found to to possibly be buying isk, that must mean all 30-40k of the CFC are running a massive rmt operation...

Lets be blunt here. If anyone wants to run an rmt operation you do not base it in null, you base it where you get the most isk for your time. There is a reason why 80% of bots are found in high sec.
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#294 - 2014-10-17 00:35:10 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
The problem isn't that we're a group of 30,000 that coordinate together to hold territory.

It definitely becomes a problem at some point. You could argue that we haven't reached that point *yet*, but at some point it's definitely a problem.

Trivial example: There are 30,000 people in nullsec, and a group of 30,000 coordinate together to hold sov. You've got a problem.You can't just arbitrarily say that X thousand players setting each other blue isn't a problem because that statement just doesn't hold true for all X.

The current situation (30k in one coalition, 25k in another, 24k renters , maybe 1k-2k semi-relevant independents, numbers might be off by a bit but w/e) may or may not be a problem. Certainly seemed a problem a month ago when everyone was b*tching about ~no content~.

Depends on whether or not the first three groups are busy buying and selling roses, I suppose. P


5 idiots are found to to possibly be buying isk, that must mean all 30-40k of the CFC are running a massive rmt operation...

Lets be blunt here. If anyone wants to run an rmt operation you do not base it in null, you base it where you get the most isk for your time. There is a reason why 80% of bots are found in high sec.

Touchy, but I accused no one of anything, hence the "whether or not" bit. Honestly, I'm sure most of you aren't dedicated space florists. I'm equally sure that some of you are. Same as any Eve organization really. It was just a snide comment based on current events. Cool
Angeal MacNova
Holefood Inc.
Warriors of the Blood God
#295 - 2014-10-17 01:35:53 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Nano roaming dreadnought.


Nano....dreadnought....

To each their own I guess.

But anyway, as it is there are no minerals that can be found in high sec that can't be found in null but there are null sec minerals that can't be found in high sec (ie Morphite).

T2 moons only exist in null.

Both null and high sec have ice
Both null and high sec have PI

Null is in a better position to get pirate faction BPCs/Modules, and to get officer modules.

The rats can be salvaged to make rigs with.

So how do you get such a ship for free? You make it.

WRT T2 moons. So they are spread out and you don't have access to each type. So what have null sec alliances been doing? Going to high sec and buying the T2 components they are missing to carryout T2 manufacturing? Why? It would be better for the alliances to work out trade agreements directly with each other.

I probably shouldn't be pointing this out but, the null sec alliances are in a position to form a cartel on anything T2.

Vald Tegor wrote:

Nice loaded question you have there.

Are you actually suggesting that every line member take up mining and industry? You want them all to mine ore, get their own blueprints and do their own production? Does every high sec mission runner who wants a Machariel go out to acquire his own drop or LP for the blueprint copy, then mine to build his own Machariel? Or does he find the most efficient way or the path of least resistance to acquiring the ISK to purchase it from someone else?


I'm suggesting that if an alliance is going to move out there and claim sov and gain access to all the resources mentioned above, that at least one of the corps that make up this alliance be industrial and capable of providing the alliance with what it needs. It's about working together as a collective entity. So no not every player has to be both a combatant and an industrialist. Some take on the role of combatant while others take on the role of industrialist. You know, there are indy players who do indy because they enjoy doing it. The same kind of players who like playing minecraft (tekkit), space engineers, 7 days to die and other games like it. Making isk is a bonus.

So long as they make enough to cover costs (BPO researching, manufactoring fees, PLEX for alts). All they may expect in return is for the combatants to actually defend their own space instead of patrolling the other alliances' looking for miners to gank...er...I mean looking for "good fights".

With a proper industrial foundation, the null sec alliances should be far bigger producers on the high sec market (especially in anything T2) than they are consumers. I'm talking a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio here. In other words, all that isk being generated in high sec? A large portion of that should be making its way to null sec.

EvE may be a PvP game first and foremost but that is only because all activities in EvE are a form of PvP. Everything from FW to station traiding. Even mining. Being a sandbox game where everything in the game is made by the players (every ship, module, ammo, drone, POS, POS module, station, etc.), then EvE is an indy game second. Above other activities including ship vs ship activities.

Because without dedicated indy players,
Quote:
every line member take up mining and industry
is exactly what you would have along with every ratter, mission runner, gate camper, incursion runner, etc.



http://www.projectvaulderie.com/goodnight-sweet-prince/

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/the-untold-story/

CCP's true, butthurt, colors.

Because those who can't do themselves keep others from doing too.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#296 - 2014-10-17 01:41:44 UTC
Angeal MacNova wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Nano roaming dreadnought.


Nano....dreadnought....

To each their own I guess.

But anyway, as it is there are no minerals that can be found in high sec that can't be found in null but there are null sec minerals that can't be found in high sec (ie Morphite).

T2 moons only exist in null.

Both null and high sec have ice
Both null and high sec have PI

Null is in a better position to get pirate faction BPCs/Modules, and to get officer modules.

The rats can be salvaged to make rigs with.

So how do you get such a ship for free? You make it.

WRT T2 moons. So they are spread out and you don't have access to each type. So what have null sec alliances been doing? Going to high sec and buying the T2 components they are missing to carryout T2 manufacturing? Why? It would be better for the alliances to work out trade agreements directly with each other.

I probably shouldn't be pointing this out but, the null sec alliances are in a position to form a cartel on anything T2.

Vald Tegor wrote:

Nice loaded question you have there.

Are you actually suggesting that every line member take up mining and industry? You want them all to mine ore, get their own blueprints and do their own production? Does every high sec mission runner who wants a Machariel go out to acquire his own drop or LP for the blueprint copy, then mine to build his own Machariel? Or does he find the most efficient way or the path of least resistance to acquiring the ISK to purchase it from someone else?


I'm suggesting that if an alliance is going to move out there and claim sov and gain access to all the resources mentioned above, that at least one of the corps that make up this alliance be industrial and capable of providing the alliance with what it needs. It's about working together as a collective entity. So no not every player has to be both a combatant and an industrialist. Some take on the role of combatant while others take on the role of industrialist. You know, there are indy players who do indy because they enjoy doing it. The same kind of players who like playing minecraft (tekkit), space engineers, 7 days to die and other games like it. Making isk is a bonus.

So long as they make enough to cover costs (BPO researching, manufactoring fees, PLEX for alts). All they may expect in return is for the combatants to actually defend their own space instead of patrolling the other alliances' looking for miners to gank...er...I mean looking for "good fights".

With a proper industrial foundation, the null sec alliances should be far bigger producers on the high sec market (especially in anything T2) than they are consumers. I'm talking a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio here. In other words, all that isk being generated in high sec? A large portion of that should be making its way to null sec.

EvE may be a PvP game first and foremost but that is only because all activities in EvE are a form of PvP. Everything from FW to station traiding. Even mining. Being a sandbox game where everything in the game is made by the players (every ship, module, ammo, drone, POS, POS module, station, etc.), then EvE is an indy game second. Above other activities including ship vs ship activities.

Because without dedicated indy players,
Quote:
every line member take up mining and industry
is exactly what you would have along with every ratter, mission runner, gate camper, incursion runner, etc.






Before you go any further you should look into exactly what resourses are available where. You have made wrong assumptions in everything you just said.
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#297 - 2014-10-17 02:25:59 UTC
Angeal MacNova wrote:

I probably shouldn't be pointing this out but, the null sec alliances are in a position to form a cartel on anything T2.



I take it you are fairly new to Eve Online

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=100093
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#298 - 2014-10-17 02:59:13 UTC
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Angeal MacNova wrote:

I probably shouldn't be pointing this out but, the null sec alliances are in a position to form a cartel on anything T2.



I take it you are fairly new to Eve Online

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=100093


Its almost like they know nothing about null and its history.
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#299 - 2014-10-17 03:18:32 UTC  |  Edited by: PotatoOverdose
baltec1 wrote:

Its almost like they know nothing about null and its history.

Goons used to be cute and fuzzy, like hero is now, with mass frigates and such. But then they blue'd a bunch of people, creating the greater goon community or something similar, and got a lot of space, more then BoB ever had.

Is any of that factually incorrect? P
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#300 - 2014-10-17 03:20:53 UTC
Vald Tegor wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

For the record, i have problems with Occupancy Sov as an idea (I think the people who have that idea are mostly PVPrs who don't understand PVErs like me and it's foolish to make 'people you don't understand' the corner stone of a sov system this is why Dominion Sov with it's 'activity indexes' has failed). I don't like a lot of the ideas people have (like NPC space in every region) also. but I think they made those proposals because they are mistaken, not because they are 'evil'.

I'm curious how you expect occupancy based sov to negatively impact your play style


Exactly who said anything about negativly impacting my play style? I clearly stated my problem with the idea of occupancy sov: PVPers don't understand non-pvp players, basing a whioel sov system off of people you don't understand it a mistake waiting to happen.

Side note, I think the term "play style" is the dumbest thing anyone has ever come up with when talking about a video game.