open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Nullsec design goals feedback: Industry
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Author Topic

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.15 10:50:00 - [1]
 

This set of threads exist to collect feedback for the separate parts of the devblog "Nullsec Development: Design Goals", which can be found here.


This thread is about: INDUSTRY


Please read the blog and give specific feedback on this area of the blog. The more precise, reasoned and comprehensive you can be, the better we can utilize your feedback Smile

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.08.15 11:58:00 - [2]
 

Mitten's CSM thread "Farms and Fields" has a lot of stuff on the subject.

Boils down to "MOAR! slots" basically and various ways to accomplish it. If you haven't at least skimmed that thread, I would encourage you to do so.

Fitzwilliam Bookworm
Posted - 2011.08.15 12:49:00 - [3]
 

So basically you are killing T2 Invention and manufacturing in hi-sec or at least not making it worth while? Real big market for mass T1 products and what about all those SP put into this side of things for players that dont want to live in nullsec (for whatever reason)?

Karia Sur
Posted - 2011.08.15 12:55:00 - [4]
 

Another stupid idea imo.

CCP language version:- Lets shove everything that earns a profit into nullsec where it should be, as anything lucrative should have a risk.

Plain English version #1:- Rich get richer, poor stay poor.

Plain English version #2:- Most of you dont play the game the way we (CCP) want you to, so we are removing your toys.....the door is thataway --------->

Ishina Fel
Caldari
Terra Incognita
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:09:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Ishina Fel on 15/08/2011 13:13:06

Industry slots are an issue in nullsec, yes. And not necessarily because there's few of them - no, it's more because most of them are useless, and fixed to remain useless.

Take a Caldari Research Outpost. I forget how many research slots it has exactly, but let's assume that it's 20 per activity. So:

- 20x Material Efficiency Research
- 20x Time Efficiency Reserach
- 20x Blueprint Copying
- 20x Invention
- 20x Reverse Engineering
------------------------------
>> 100 total research slots available.

Now take a look at how they are being utilized in a sample Outpost (my humble home, as seen last week):

- 20x Material Efficiency Research, each one booked out 6-8 weeks in advance
- 2x Time Efficiency Reserach
- 3x Blueprint Copying
- 1x Invention
- 0x Reverse Engineering
------------------------------
>> 26 slots used in total.

Clearly this means that some three quarters of all research slots offered by this particular Outpost are not useful to the playerbase. The players clearly wish to engage in much much more ME research than they are able to, and thus need to erect POSes to be able to do so. It is good that they have this option; however, running POSes is a legendarily tedious job, especially if the POS is running extremely inefficient because it has exactly the same problem as the Outpost: only a few of the lab slots are useful.

And you know what? Manufacturing Outposts have similar issues, with hundreds of assembly lines reserved for booster production while the alliance tries to build ships.

Now, there are many opinions about this, but I don't think that just "moar slots" is the right way - you still end up with huge amounts of unused ones. Nor would changing the distribution of the various slot types be ideal. After all, this is only a sample Outpost. What if, somewhere else in EVE, there was a Research Outpost in desperate need for more copy slots? Just because we happen to be short on ME research slots doesn't mean we get to demand having other slots transformed into ME slots just for us. Finally, changing all research slots to allow all types of research (or all manufacturing slots to allow all kinds of products) might be the superficially ideal solution, but it's also an incredibly boring solution.

Instead, take this chance for direct synergy with your projects of making space feel like home by allowing advanced player customization and investment.

For example, give the owner of the Outpost the option to "refit" lab slots and assembly lines at will, at a cost. Like, we could then invest into turning a large number of our unused research slots into ME slots, while those other guys in that other Outpost instead pour their ISK into getting more copy slots. The Outpost still has the same 100 slots, but utilization efficiency suddenly goes straight up. And if next month, we need other slots? Well, guess we'll have to invest into a new refit!

Summary of goals achieved:
- Significantly heightens convenience and efficiency of science & industry in player-controlled Outposts
- Creates a new ISK sink to balance out increased monetary rewards... although refits could conceivably ask for minerals or PI goods as well
- One more way for players to invest into improving the space they want to own
- Makes players feel at home because they can customize it exactly to their needs


And now I'm starting to run out of characters, so:

Hope this helps Smile

SuHwak
Trust is Value
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:13:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Karia Sur
Another stupid idea imo.

CCP language version:- Lets shove everything that earns a profit into nullsec where it should be, as anything lucrative should have a risk.

Plain English version #1:- Rich get richer, poor stay poor.

Plain English version #2:- Most of you dont play the game the way we (CCP) want you to, so we are removing your toys.....the door is thataway --------->


#1 No, those that take risk, get bigger reward, its always how EvE should (have) work(ed)

#2 So what? Make a little/a lot less profit, in return, you are somewhat safer and don't have to take/lose your stuff to another place every half-year because someone conquered your space. If you don't like that, then EvE might not be for you...

PS. I'm a carebear at heart, but I would want to get more profit from mining in 0.0 then I can from Highsec, strange that its the other way round right now.

I would go to 0.0 if I could get more ISK for my time there. Then its also much easier to x-up, and get used to losing ships Laughing and gain some more experience in other parts of the game.

Alexander Renoir
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:19:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Alexander Renoir on 15/08/2011 16:52:50
•Geared towards T2
◦Our current proposal is that hisec is for volume T1 goods, lowsec will be for meta/faction gear eventually, nullsec is for T2, and wormholes are for T3


Are you nuts CCP? The big alliances have already the materials of the Tech II production under their control. Now you want that they have the production itself? Tech II as a monopol; limited to nullsec?

If someone claims, that nullsec is such wasted territory, useless and totally crap, THAN I must ask: Why is all nullsec occopied, when however the system is not worth your work? The problem with 0.0 is NOT a problem of buff or nerf. It is a problem of the current absolute DUMB sovereignty mechanic. A few Alliances hold the 0.0 and all he rest must pay in order to get not killed when they want to go there. To give the monopol of Tech II, or to place the best agents in 0.0 will not solve any problems. Your ideas will lead to nothing. Maybe the prices for the little corps (as renters for such systems in 0.0) will rise. But the situation with the powerblocks will be the same. Not one person more, will go to 0.0, if the crap situation will be the same. The problem is YOUR Dumb Sov mechanic. It is too static. All you need is a lot of people who blob the 0.0 and hold them. LOL! But sure.. your new superagents for PvE and Tech II whatever will really change something on this situation. WAKE UP!!

Karia Sur
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:31:00 - [8]
 

Just thought of an option you forgot to add CCP :-

Make all planets in high sec/low sec worthless, and make only null sec planets provide PI resources.........that should be enough to drive the rest of the high sec industrialists not affected by the other ideas, out of the game.

Rrama Ratamnim
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:32:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Rrama Ratamnim on 15/08/2011 13:32:22
Stop whining carebears they didnt say remove T2 from hisec, they said make it most lucrative in nullsec,....

To fix industry in nullsec, give nullsec statons more manufacturing slots like a LOT more ... on top of that give advanced stations boosts to build speed without negative me effects...

Hell even give T2 manufacturing in nullsec a PE boost perhaps to help rapid building of t2 things like ammo

oh ya and ... http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1498805

Nomad III
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:42:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Nomad III on 15/08/2011 13:45:18
Edited by: Nomad III on 15/08/2011 13:44:47
Industry
If 0.0 pilots are able to be selv sufficient, it's breaking the greater rules of acting together. That means every modern society depending on global rules of trade. But according to those ideas we are on the way back to the middelages.

I propose a different strategy: Make trade between hostiles in 0.0 possible so that the interconnection between all pilots is visible and has consequences.

For example give some station types a special rule as a trader haven. Ships like JF and haulers are able to dock without getting harrased.


SuHwak
Trust is Value
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:48:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Karia Sur
Just thought of an option you forgot to add CCP :-

Make all planets in high sec/low sec worthless, and make only null sec planets provide PI resources.........that should be enough to drive the rest of the high sec industrialists not affected by the other ideas, out of the game.


Why does everything have to be so black vs white?

Yes, less ISK/hour in high sec, but its not ever going to be 0 ISK/hour.

Lets keep this constructive please!

RAW23
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:54:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: RAW23 on 15/08/2011 14:04:02
Edited by: RAW23 on 15/08/2011 14:00:09
Edited by: RAW23 on 15/08/2011 13:57:48
Edited by: RAW23 on 15/08/2011 13:55:15
The broad lines of the proposals here seem to delegitimise 'high-sec industrialist' as a play style. I have no problem with some aspects of high-sec being nerfed (I think large towers should definitely go since they are invulnerable to anything but a large and well organised enemy fleet) but removing everything except T1 production? Whilst the idea might be to just give nullsec a production edge rather than a monopoly in T2, any competitive edge will rapidly tell and will very likely force all non-null residents out of the market (especially given the ease of logistics).

It's also worth noting that the chances of this change leading to highsec industrialists moving to nullsec is pretty slim. The problem is not the area but the people: giving nullsec a defacto monopoly on T2 will actually just concentrate power into the hands of corp and alliance leaders. Getting into nullsec industry will not, in itself, be an option. The industrialist will actually have to seek permission to get into nullsec industry if he wants to pitch a POS somewhere (my limited experience of null is that the rank and file are not free to set up their own industry in many alliances already and it seems very likely that T2 production will end up being controlled in a similar way to moon-mining - evidence for this can already be seen in the demand for station slots; the people using those do not, presumably, have their own industrial infrstructure). One thing that might work is to give nullsec dwellers a proper T2 production array that won't gimp the cost of production. But if it provides a cost bonus then that will lead to a monopolised market.

Further, T2 production in null will have very minimal risks involved. Supercap production is a long term committment that cannot easily adjust to the movements of the battlefront. T2, on the other hand, tends to run on c. 2 day cycles and barring the occassional, very rare, hit and run attack production lines are never really going to be threatened. At worst they will just fall silent for periods of time when the action gets too close.

Making nullsec 99% self-sufficient also seems like a pretty terrible idea to someone, like myself, who thinks that interaction is the key to making the three sec areas (plus wormholes) work together. I'm also struggling to see why null needs all the goodies implied in the outline. Nullsec players are not notably poorer than their highsec cousins despite their more frequent ship losses. The alliances themselves already control the greatest isk-fountain in the game in the form of moon-mining and there seem to be far more obscenely wealthy people down there (anecdotally) than in high-sec. Is there any other explanation for the proposed changes than that they might force more highsec players to go to null since there will be nothing worthwhile left to do in highsec?

Obviously, I'm commenting here without having seen the details and it may be that other changes will make small outfits who choose to tell the big blobs to go **** themselves to be viable. But given CCP's history on the implementation of sov changes and their tendency to, shall we say, not provide optimum performance in this area, one's confidence that the more or less complete destruction of highsec industry will be properly compensated may not be very high. As my understanding of the outline currently stands I really don't see much to recommend it as it amounts to a massive nerf for the vast majority of the game's players and a massive additional concentration of wealth and power into the hands of groups who are already the wealthiest and most powerful in the game.

Disclaimer - these are first impressions and gut reactions and are subject to change in line with persuasive arguments to supplement the outline sketch.

Callic Veratar
Posted - 2011.08.15 14:03:00 - [13]
 

If there's a massive supply of low-end resources in nullsec, what stops an Alliance from hauling them all to a market hub and crashing the market?

Unless there's a method being discussed that will allow me, as a highsec dweller, to fly some ship into nullsec and come home with a cargo hold full of T2 goods acquired from some source, this seems to be getting quite imbalanced.

Highsec is dependent on all others
Lowsec is dependent on all others
Nullsec is self sufficient
W-space is dependent on all others

EVEN!

Karia Sur
Posted - 2011.08.15 14:03:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: SuHwak
Lets keep this constructive please!



I cannot think of any constructive comment to make in regards to an action which would result in the fat cats of sov null getting fatter, and the carebears of highsec basically been told, you either move or leave.

Charla Audin
Posted - 2011.08.15 14:03:00 - [15]
 

Will all the materials needed for T2 manufacture be available in all areas? Otherwise you have the same situation that you have today - in order to effectively manufacture T2, all the raw materials are shipped to higsec and products made there simply because of the accessibility of materials for all races in one place.

This will continue, with the exception that T2 BPC's will probably have to be transported to highsec also because the proposed ice changes will mean there will be much less highsec BP research.

Kotami
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.08.15 14:07:00 - [16]
 

Quote:
Geared towards T2

Our current proposal is that hisec is for volume T1 goods, lowsec will be for meta/faction gear eventually, nullsec is for T2, and wormholes are for T3


So, wait. T2 producers are already at the mercy of moon mining tycoons. And now you want to force industrialists to be vulnerable to said tycoons' facerolling war machines in nullsec? You're OK with forcing players who have invested in T2 production skills for years to live in nullsec in order to use those skills?

Are you insane?

Seraphina Amaranth
Posted - 2011.08.15 14:14:00 - [17]
 

I think the principle

Quote:
"Our current proposal is that hisec is for volume T1 goods, lowsec will be for meta/faction gear eventually, nullsec is for T2, and wormholes are for T3"


won't work.

A better principle would be

"highsec is for all goods, but expensive to produce, low-sec is for cheaper production but riskier transport, and null-sec is for more profitable, faster production, provided you can build the infrastructure"

darius mclever
Posted - 2011.08.15 14:54:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Alexander Renoir
•Geared towards T2
◦Our current proposal is that hisec is for volume T1 goods, lowsec will be for meta/faction gear eventually, nullsec is for T2, and wormholes are for T3


Are you nuts CCP? The big alliances have already the materials of the Tech II production under their control. Now you want that they have the production itself? Tech II as a monopol; limited to nullsec?


QFT. lets feed even more isk into the power blocks.

Smoking Blunts
Posted - 2011.08.15 15:52:00 - [19]
 

wtf are you lot smoking.

run a data base search for all teh people with more than 1 account. see where half there alts are. therein empire in industry alt corps doing industry. see how many your gonna loose.

bad idea is bad, all your gonna do is make it harder logisticly, harder to get started in and more of a pain in the arse than ever. not to mention giving big alliances even more isk control than now. 10-20mil t2 mods in empire, **** that again, dumb idea is dumb

Hroya
Posted - 2011.08.15 16:10:00 - [20]
 

Interresting to see how much an empire alliance has to fork out after these changes to build up a remotely decent T2 fleet and what not to try and "conquer" a spot out there in null.

Your industrial changes are comedy gold.

Everything wrapped up in lots of words when it can be said with just a few. Control, dominance, submission and greed.

You lot just dont have the balls to do what would be best and to fight that part in the game that's killing it.


Ashoo Naboo
Posted - 2011.08.15 16:15:00 - [21]
 

Dear CCP,

I think it is very bad idea to put your design focus on particular side of EVE. Be it 0.0, lowsec or hisec. While concentrating your design focus on that area you are automatically dis-balance others.

If you are God, you design one, balanced, beautiful world, and then make creation in stages. Concentrate on a single side of the game and you are going to create a mutant needing a permanent artificial life support.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.15 16:25:00 - [22]
 

Undoubtedly these ideas will result in a larger percentage of EVE being in null sec than is now the case. Some will move there, most will simply leave the game after being shafted in such a massive fashion. So, null sec gets a higher percentage of the subscribers simply because there won’t be as many people playing.

Even releasing these ideas as “something that we’re thinking of doing” is stupid and guaranteed to lose customers. This after the recent troubles and losses of subscribers? That CCP is even considering some of these options is enough to dissuade people from subscribing.

A number of these ideas are deal breakers. Individually, much less in a group. It doesn’t matter how long these things take to implement. People see this crap coming down the pipe, they’re going to get out of the pool.

-Windjammer

P.S. The whole risk versus reward argument is based upon the fallacy that people are in high sec because it’s safe. Some are, but most simply don’t want to deal with large player group politics.


Jareck Hunter
Rubicon Legion
Posted - 2011.08.15 17:01:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Jareck Hunter on 15/08/2011 17:12:48
Originally by: Ishina Fel
For example, give the owner of the Outpost the option to "refit" lab slots and assembly lines at will, at a cost. Like, we could then invest into turning a large number of our unused research slots into ME slots, while those other guys in that other Outpost instead pour their ISK into getting more copy slots. The Outpost still has the same 100 slots, but utilization efficiency suddenly goes straight up. And if next month, we need other slots? Well, guess we'll have to invest into a new refit!



I like this idea, was thinking about something like that.

Give every station 50 Slots or so, which can be sold/rented.
If you or your corp owns it, you can place assembly lines or labs or whatever there, everyone gives different boni and mali and so every station can be customized based on the needs of the residents.

Some examples:

Standart Assembly Line:
Normal build time and ressources needed.

Caldari Assembly Line:
-10% build time of caldari ships
+10% for the others
only allowed in caldari highsec space and lowsec of all nations/0.0

Sansha Ship Assembly Array:
-20% buildtime for sansha ships
-10% for caldari and amarr
+20% the others
can only be used in 0.0

You can customice the cost's of your assembly array and can define who is allowed to use it(standingbased) like an outpost.

The first ones in empire space will be auctioned, based on incursions that happened in the system (corps fleeing the system and leaving empty slots behind) and in empire 50% of the slots on a station will stay in npc hands. They will have monthly costs like "land-taxes" so they have to be used to be cost efficient. This shall prevent people from buying all slots when they got released and to take hold on all slots without using them.

The Assembly Lines and so on, should be produced like pos modules from PI goods.

So this will give more power to the people to shape the world like they want, you have a new isk sink and industrials in all regions have some more toys.

Thats it.

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.15 17:06:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Callic Veratar
If there's a massive supply of low-end resources in nullsec, what stops an Alliance from hauling them all to a market hub and crashing the market?

Unless there's a method being discussed that will allow me, as a highsec dweller, to fly some ship into nullsec and come home with a cargo hold full of T2 goods acquired from some source, this seems to be getting quite imbalanced.

Highsec is dependent on all others
Lowsec is dependent on all others
Nullsec is self sufficient
W-space is dependent on all others

EVEN!


Yeah, low-ends in nullsec is an ongoing concern. We're looking into other ways to deal with this.

Originally by: Charla Audin
Will all the materials needed for T2 manufacture be available in all areas? Otherwise you have the same situation that you have today - in order to effectively manufacture T2, all the raw materials are shipped to higsec and products made there simply because of the accessibility of materials for all races in one place.

This will continue, with the exception that T2 BPC's will probably have to be transported to highsec also because the proposed ice changes will mean there will be much less highsec BP research.


Yup, this is an issue too.

Originally by: Seraphina Amaranth
I think the principle

Quote:
"Our current proposal is that hisec is for volume T1 goods, lowsec will be for meta/faction gear eventually, nullsec is for T2, and wormholes are for T3"


won't work.

A better principle would be

"highsec is for all goods, but expensive to produce, low-sec is for cheaper production but riskier transport, and null-sec is for more profitable, faster production, provided you can build the infrastructure"


And yes, we're talking with the CSM about this stuff too. The tricky bit is finding a balance where nullsec industry is viable without completely overwhelming everywhere else. We definitely want to do something about industry, T2 seems like an obvious place to start, but we're not committed to that yet and still listening to feedback on it.

Nasro Drags
Posted - 2011.08.15 17:13:00 - [25]
 

I not make it a requirement to produce T2 equipment the usage of player owned structures?

These structures could only be built in nullsec AND lowsec. That way, high sec isn't completely overwhelmed, because you can move your operations to a nearby low sec system. However, null sec will be preferable as it is much safer (if your alliance controls the are) than low sec.

This would work as an incentive for industrial minded players to move to not so secure places.

Bubba Coronet
Posted - 2011.08.15 17:16:00 - [26]
 

Just a crazy idea spinning off from what Ishina Fel suggested.

Instead of making the research slots adjustable on a temporary basis, why not make them assignable at any time? You pick a slot, tell it you are doing whatever type of research you want, then get the run moving. In order to make things more separated between regions, give bonuses based on what sort of production a region should focus on. This would effect stations and POS equally. Bonuses could include reductions in time and materials used, quality of the final results, and chance of success for invention or reverse engineering.

Highsec - bonuses to material and production efficiency, handicaps to invention and reverse engineering.

Lowsec - bonuses to copying, big ones. Make lowsec the Kinko's of space.

Nullsec - bonuses to invention, handicaps to material & production efficiency

Wormspace - bonuses to reverse engineering, handicaps to everything else.

The same ideas can be applied to factory slots and reprocessing as well. These bonuses could involve time or materials, so long as they keep the same goal. T1 best in highsec, T2 in nullsec, T3 in wormspace.

I have few clues what to do with Gallente outposts. Reductions in marketing costs/taxes based on what's being sold? Links to pictures of booth babes every million sales? Question

Zirse
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.08.15 17:24:00 - [27]
 

The key here is to reward null-sec T2 production, not remove it in highsec, which is I'm guessing the general idea here.

Make a pos anchored in nullsec produce T2 BPC at -2/-2 with no decryptor rather than -4/-4. Also there needs to be a way to access datacores in nullsec.

I think that, along with the mineral changes, should be sufficient.


Thur Barbek
Posted - 2011.08.15 17:50:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Zirse
The key here is to reward null-sec T2 production, not remove it in highsec, which is I'm guessing the general idea here.

Make a pos anchored in nullsec produce T2 BPC at -2/-2 with no decryptor rather than -4/-4. Also there needs to be a way to access datacores in nullsec.

I think that, along with the mineral changes, should be sufficient.



That would really only effect ship invention. The effect on the majority of modules wouldn't cover transport costs from nullsec to highsec.
I agree about the datacores. There are obviously pirate scientists, the people who invented the pirate faction ships. Why are we denied acess to their datacores? :(

Lorminator
Posted - 2011.08.15 18:04:00 - [29]
 

Dear CCP - as a high-sec T2 producer, I feel Null already has an advantage -- for one, they have more materials available, both minerals and moon-goo. On top of that, they don't have to spend ages ruining their standings to half the factions in order to be able to setup a POS somewhere.
But I see where you're going, I absolutely do not like it, but I'll try to give you a constructive option that I think is "fair" according to your design rules:
* Highsec - small POS only
* Lowsec - small/medium
* null - small/medium/large
and for manufacturing at stations: number of slots in high < low < null.

This in itself would give the powerblocks a HUGE advantage, but still let new players learn the ropes and make a penny in Highsec.

MeBiatch
Posted - 2011.08.15 18:05:00 - [30]
 

imo industry should be directly related to planet ownership...

you should get certain bonuses for owning different types of planets... like if you own a terran planet that has a high population on it you should get some sort of production bonus...

and so on...

Please make planets directly involved in any industry production/minning bonuses for a system...

plus i would love to see a sim city like mod put on PI... it could even be the cites you design and make could be maps that are fought over in dust...


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only