These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries

First post First post First post
Author
zluq zabaa
Inhumanum Legionis
LowSechnaya Sholupen
#321 - 2017-03-23 20:26:41 UTC  |  Edited by: zluq zabaa
Querns wrote:
zluq zabaa wrote:
Querns wrote:
zluq zabaa wrote:
1. Moon Mining is not passive income. Whoever says that must have a grave misconception of what it means to be passive. Doing a lot of hauling (fuel, goo to market) for some 200M profit per month on a regular R16 moon is not passive by any means. You are probably putting equally or more active time in that, than AFK mining in Null or HighSec for 200M.


The income is about as passive as it gets. If you have even a glimmer of ability to optimize things, you can avoid touching a moon miner for a month or more. The size of the income so generated doesn't make the income less passive. Nice try cherry picking a dumb example, by the way.


It is only a dumb example if you're speaking from the perspective of someone who is thinking in numbers of 20,40, 100 moons, because you have the possibilities to run as many. Touching it "once a month" doesn't make it more passive than undocking "once a month" to rat for 200M or mine for 200M with equal or less time involved.


Again, you're cherry picking a low-value example to try and pretend like moon mining isn't passive. The passive or active nature of income is completely unrelated to the magnitude of income so generated.


First, as I've shown you and you fail to find any counter-argument: Moon mining is not passive. I know you wish you could prove me wrong, because it is the base of all your following arguments, but no you can't. "Passive" would mean that you don't have to do anything or so little that it barely counts - which is not the case with moon mining. You have to source fuel, fuel your POS, haul fuel and goo to some market and sell that ****. You have to spend real and active time to get ISK out of that.

Second, you seem to not like my 200M example. Let me explain: R16 moons are far more common than some R64 moons which are anyway mostly un-attainable for 99% of EVE population. So, IF you are only happy speaking about R64 moons, you would not need to criticize the alleged "passive" nature of it, but because the it is far too easy to sit on it for too much of an income compared to other activities.

Simply forcing people to launch a mining fleet will not change a bit of that imbalance. It will only lead to Goonswarm Federation having a bit more income than some Lowsec Entities who naturally don't have a full mining outfit. Because: no mining upgrades possible, no Supers or Titans can be build in Lowsec, etcpp. So yeah, I get it, you are advocating for your very own interest, by pretending that you actually don't give a **** or that it would be good for EVE or even everyone.

How about this: Make Moon Mining Lowsec only. This would make Lowsec great again.
(and a real good reason for mining fleets in lowsec)
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#322 - 2017-03-23 20:39:14 UTC
zluq zabaa wrote:

First, as I've shown you and you fail to find any counter-argument: Moon mining is not passive.

Today's moon mining is extremely passive. You do a thing once a month. Putting up buy orders and sell orders is not strenuous.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Leo Augustus
Rolex Classic
#323 - 2017-03-23 20:42:58 UTC
OK, so maybe this is just tears, but I've been trying to find an articulate way of making my point and so far failing Big smile

Passive, or semi-passive income is important to the game.

That's why you buy learning implants, why you plex alts, why you work your way up the political ranks....

So, one day you can earn decent isk with less effort because you've put in the legwork and you can stop ratting, mining, or scanning 6-7 hours a day to out-compete your peers and hostile neighbors. You now have time for organizational work, leadership activities, recruitment, and player development.

Otherwise, what is the difference between say ratting in a bc for 9m ticks and a carrier for 50m isk ticks? To replace the occasional loss, given the price difference, there you are still ratting 7 hours a day... or mining... or mining moonstuffs.

In different ways, moon mining (more passive) and running reaction POS's (kinda, sorta, not really passive) are just about the only way to scale up operations to your isk and time limits that can be done with JUST YOUR MAIN account.

Sure, u need cyno and trade alts, and some pi, or a good logistics structure, but you don't need to log into one alt, start your ten reactions, log out.. log into another alt, etc, etc. etc.

Your risk/reward is physical, sitting in space, vulnerable to destruction, and a PITA to move, so you'll twist nuts to keep your sov.

Conversely, with what is proposed, reacting will be a skill requiring a fraction of the infrastructure investment (one cit) with a limited number able to be run be one toon. So now you have to (like PI, T2 indy, multiblox mining) invest in characters to station spin and run reaction jobs

(or you have to invest in cheap miners alts to efficiently harvest your goo)

For reacting in particular, now your investment is hardly in space or vulnerable at all. It's all toons parked in cits w full assett safety. For moon mining, I'd suspect docking rights will be give to neutral npc corp alts that are granted docking rights. Undock, semi afk crush the field, redock, log out for a week. Who care if they die, they're in retrievers w no kb issues.

In either case, this is what I see. An effective end to the last scalable, profitable activity that doesn't require one plex a month per alt to scale up.

At least with plex available in much smaller chunks, you might be able to just activate your mining alts for a few days at a time to mop up big goo piles, just seems SOOO tedious and unnecessary.
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#324 - 2017-03-23 20:45:39 UTC
Leo Augustus wrote:
At least with plex available in much smaller chunks, you might be able to just activate your mining alts for a few days at a time to mop up big goo piles, just seems SOOO tedious and unnecessary.


This is not the case; read the follow up blog. Game time will not be available in chunks smaller than 30 days.

I'm not sure why so many people think this. It was never going to happen, and is in fact not happening.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#325 - 2017-03-23 20:49:03 UTC
zluq zabaa wrote:
Moon mining is not passive.

So when you warp away or log off for the night, the moon harvester turns off? Income generation halts?
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#326 - 2017-03-23 20:50:27 UTC
Common misconceptions ITT seem to revolve around the idea that individual players will be FORCED into mining by their alliance. This stems from the enshrined belief that moongoo = SRP. It doesn't; income = SRP. Moongoo is just one form of income. If your alliance is worth anything at all, they'll find new ways to fund SRP. If they can't, and SRP is important to you, consider a change.

Likewise, if your alliance tries to force you to mine, consider leaving. Democracy is omnipresent in Eve Online, but you have to vote with your feet, rather than with a ballot pen.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#327 - 2017-03-23 20:59:07 UTC
Something I haven't seen addressed.
Low sec alliances & defending their moon goo.
While they certainly can shoot first, this will result in security status hits in low security space.

As a result (& for smoothing the road if any moon mining even if really inefficient in high sec) I propose that the field have an 'access list' and if you are not on that access list you get a suspect timer. This won't stop any ninja mining since someone still has to be there to shoot them anyway, but it means an alliance defending their refineries moon pull doesn't take sec status hits for doing so.
Liira Savlin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#328 - 2017-03-23 21:11:16 UTC
i wonder about the viability of prospect BLOPS fleets for moon mining with this operation. Is their yield too sh*t to be worth the effort, or would it be worth it for risk mitigation?
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#329 - 2017-03-23 21:23:03 UTC
Querns wrote:
Common misconceptions ITT seem to revolve around the idea that individual players will be FORCED into mining by their alliance. This stems from the enshrined belief that moongoo = SRP. It doesn't; income = SRP. Moongoo is just one form of income. If your alliance is worth anything at all, they'll find new ways to fund SRP. If they can't, and SRP is important to you, consider a change.

Likewise, if your alliance tries to force you to mine, consider leaving. Democracy is omnipresent in Eve Online, but you have to vote with your feet, rather than with a ballot pen.


Can't wait for people whining about mining CTA tho. We know it will happen in some corp/alliance.
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#330 - 2017-03-23 21:30:40 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Querns wrote:
Common misconceptions ITT seem to revolve around the idea that individual players will be FORCED into mining by their alliance. This stems from the enshrined belief that moongoo = SRP. It doesn't; income = SRP. Moongoo is just one form of income. If your alliance is worth anything at all, they'll find new ways to fund SRP. If they can't, and SRP is important to you, consider a change.

Likewise, if your alliance tries to force you to mine, consider leaving. Democracy is omnipresent in Eve Online, but you have to vote with your feet, rather than with a ballot pen.


Can't wait for people whining about mining CTA tho. We know it will happen in some corp/alliance.


Probably true. Garbage organizations are everywhere.

oh shit we're in one right nooooow

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Obsidian Blacke
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#331 - 2017-03-23 21:49:53 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Something I haven't seen addressed.
Low sec alliances & defending their moon goo.
While they certainly can shoot first, this will result in security status hits in low security space.

As a result (& for smoothing the road if any moon mining even if really inefficient in high sec) I propose that the field have an 'access list' and if you are not on that access list you get a suspect timer. This won't stop any ninja mining since someone still has to be there to shoot them anyway, but it means an alliance defending their refineries moon pull doesn't take sec status hits for doing so.



The rocks don't belong to their corp. You can't own a rock....man.
Obsidian Blacke
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#332 - 2017-03-23 21:52:17 UTC
Leo Augustus wrote:


In either case, this is what I see. An effective end to the last scalable, profitable activity that doesn't require one plex a month per alt to scale up.



How so. You can still make a corp/alliance, do all the organizational work you want, and tax your members for passive income. :p
Punctator
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#333 - 2017-03-23 22:08:34 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Something I haven't seen addressed.
Low sec alliances & defending their moon goo.
While they certainly can shoot first, this will result in security status hits in low security space.

As a result (& for smoothing the road if any moon mining even if really inefficient in high sec) I propose that the field have an 'access list' and if you are not on that access list you get a suspect timer. This won't stop any ninja mining since someone still has to be there to shoot them anyway, but it means an alliance defending their refineries moon pull doesn't take sec status hits for doing so.


eve should be more haotic not less
it is because of the bunch of people wanting to control every aspect of this game - this game actualy sucks because they succed in thair plans completly. It must end or this game is dead, only a toy in hands of few very mighty people.

Fish Hunter
Un4seen Development
Sev3rance
#334 - 2017-03-23 22:14:18 UTC
Punctator wrote:
[quote=Nevyn Auscent]

eve should be more haotic not less
it is because of the bunch of people wanting to control every aspect of this game - this game actualy sucks because they succed in thair plans completly. It must end or this game is dead, only a toy in hands of few very mighty people.



Yup better make it so max of 200 characters per alliance and fleet and lets do away with any kind of standings overlay outside of alliance. Lets make it so hard mechanically to blue anyone that nobody would want to. Then we'll have a chaotic EVE Twisted
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#335 - 2017-03-23 22:16:57 UTC
Fish Hunter wrote:
Punctator wrote:
[quote=Nevyn Auscent]

eve should be more haotic not less
it is because of the bunch of people wanting to control every aspect of this game - this game actualy sucks because they succed in thair plans completly. It must end or this game is dead, only a toy in hands of few very mighty people.



Yup better make it so max of 200 characters per alliance and fleet and lets do away with any kind of standings overlay outside of alliance. Lets make it so hard mechanically to blue anyone that nobody would want to. Then we'll have a chaotic EVE Twisted


Fine by me; we have a workaround for no standings.

Why do you think CCP added the ability to set folks blue in the first place?

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Fish Hunter
Un4seen Development
Sev3rance
#336 - 2017-03-23 22:23:31 UTC
Querns wrote:


Why do you think CCP added the ability to set folks blue in the first place?


I do not know, always assumed coalitions in space
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#337 - 2017-03-23 22:24:36 UTC
Fish Hunter wrote:
Querns wrote:


Why do you think CCP added the ability to set folks blue in the first place?


I do not know, always assumed coalitions in space

Nope.

https://eveinfo.net/wiki/index~25.htm

You can use a portrait pack to differentiate between hostiles and friendlies. Groups with a portrait pack have a distinct advantage over those without, so CCP added standings to even the playing field.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Punctator
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#338 - 2017-03-23 22:32:10 UTC
Querns wrote:
Fish Hunter wrote:
Punctator wrote:
[quote=Nevyn Auscent]

eve should be more haotic not less
it is because of the bunch of people wanting to control every aspect of this game - this game actualy sucks because they succed in thair plans completly. It must end or this game is dead, only a toy in hands of few very mighty people.



Yup better make it so max of 200 characters per alliance and fleet and lets do away with any kind of standings overlay outside of alliance. Lets make it so hard mechanically to blue anyone that nobody would want to. Then we'll have a chaotic EVE Twisted


Fine by me; we have a workaround for no standings.

Why do you think CCP added the ability to set folks blue in the first place?


i dont think they predict how large player structures will become. I think they do same mistakes calculating titans costs and now we have tones of titans. Mittani and others "lords" are the REAL cancer of this game. This game is realy the only one i know when new players are so awefull harased by old and mighty. There cant be something new in eve, because old "lords" may lose thair position, so lets destroy all using big toys from passive income or total control of t2 market. This is what realy brings eve to stagnation. CCP is just stupid but they learned somethink so who knows it may change.
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#339 - 2017-03-23 22:34:39 UTC
Punctator wrote:
Querns wrote:
Fish Hunter wrote:
Punctator wrote:
[quote=Nevyn Auscent]

eve should be more haotic not less
it is because of the bunch of people wanting to control every aspect of this game - this game actualy sucks because they succed in thair plans completly. It must end or this game is dead, only a toy in hands of few very mighty people.



Yup better make it so max of 200 characters per alliance and fleet and lets do away with any kind of standings overlay outside of alliance. Lets make it so hard mechanically to blue anyone that nobody would want to. Then we'll have a chaotic EVE Twisted


Fine by me; we have a workaround for no standings.

Why do you think CCP added the ability to set folks blue in the first place?


i dont think they predict how large player structures will become. I think they do same mistakes calculating titans costs and now we have tones of titans. Mittani and others "lords" are the REAL cancer of this game. This game is realy the only one i know when new players are so awefull harased by old and mighty. There cant be something new in eve, because old "lords" may lose thair position, so lets destroy all using big toys from passive income or total control of t2 market. This is what realy brings eve to stagnation. CCP is just stupid but they learned somethink so who knows it may change.


Link your freighter lossmail.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

FoxFire Ayderan
#340 - 2017-03-23 22:51:37 UTC

The way moon mining works sounds very cool.