open All Channels
seplocked Science and Industry
blankseplocked Highsec POS: Too safe to be healthy?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Tenebrys
The Lemonade Stand
Posted - 2009.07.18 21:29:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Tenebrys on 18/07/2009 22:06:17
Edited by: Tenebrys on 18/07/2009 21:29:36
edit: grr wrong button

I wanted to write about the current state of player-owned stations in high-security space. A flight through a moderately-populated system shows it to be polluted with control towers -- in a system with 40 moons, as many as 20 will have these towers squatting on them -- many of them not even online or projecting shields. The towers that are kept online, on the other hand, tend to be filled with mobile laboratories, or sometimes even a cluster of factory modules. In higher-traffic systems, an empty moon may be impossible to find.

These conditions indicate that a large quantity of market suppliers -- especially T1 suppliers -- exists. The effect is a buyer's market, in which prices and profit margins are necessarily low. In high-traffic regions of space such as The Forge, the market is stable and non-volatile, but supplier profitability is almost nil. As more and more pilots join EVE, these kind of buyer's-market conditions are only expected to worsen, and to spread through high-security space.

So, the market's flooded with suppliers. The question we should ask, is -- why?

The first reason is that the entry barriers are relatively low. A full set of the manufacturing skills needed to optimize (ten manufacturing slots, max efficiency, fast production, etc) T1 production cost take, at most, 2 months to train. This means that manufacturing stations across high-security space become inundated with builders -- builders who are often satisfied with making 500,000 ISK worth of profit out of tying up ten production slots for 24 hours.

Beyond the skill entry barriers being easily surpassed, the monetary barriers are also weak to moderate. A manufacturer seeking to maximize output volume and capacity availability can expect to shell out 200 million ISK for a small control tower, a surplus of factory modules, and fuel to run it all for a month. Another few hundred million kredits will score the manufacturer a collection of mobile laboratories, with which to optimize material and production efficiency on the blueprints he uses. In the end, it takes less than 600 million ISK, and a couple months of training, to add thineself to the legions of people flooding Motsu with more Wrath Cruise Missiles than the CNRs there can possibly consume.

The second reason for this supplier overflow is that the risks associated with operating a high-security starbase are far, far too low. An individual with the sense to log on at least once every 24 hours to check for war declarations, can sleep easy knowing that his billion-ISK investment that he left floating out in the middle of space is going to still be there in the morning. In the even that someone does declare war, it's a simple matter of striking camp and packing all blueprints and starbase equipment into the nearest station until the storm blows over. Once the war has ended, the starbase can be re-launched and operations resumed as if nothing had happened. Corporations declaring war also have to make many gambles as to how much ransom their victim is willing to pay, how many valuables may be contained in the starbase, how dangerous its armament is, whether or not it will kick into reinforced mode, etc.

In short, high-sec starbase industry is low-entry-barrier, low-risk, and low-profit. This allows low prices on ships and equipment and thus benefits low-sec and nullsec PVP quality-of-life, but also makes high-security space even more fantastically boring than it already is. This, I feel, is a situation that needs to stop.

My suggestion as to how to alleviate matters, then? How to revitalize high-security industry, and make it an exciting, dangerous, and altogether EVE-esque endeavor?

It's quite simple: Make it easier to shoot us.

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Posted - 2009.07.18 22:23:00 - [2]
 

I disagree with most of your conclusions, especially ship production. On the largest scales, people operate by placing mineral buy orders rather than hauling, and the extra work of hauling materials there makes T1 starbase industry largely worthless. Consider the low margins on many T1 items - they simply don't support the additional costs of running a starbase just so you can produce them a fraction faster.

It's possible to sidestep the requirement of owning a POS altogether if you want to research blueprints - many people just wait it out at a public research slot, or join a research alliance.

I agree that ransoming the owner of a high-sec POS is not a viable option, but if you just want the moon it's a simple matter to issue a war dec and take down an offline tower.

What brings down margins and makes goods cheaper is not the proliferation of POS - it's more that there are lots of people who take the 'minerals I mine myself are free' line of thought, and the market then forces them to compete against each other until the reprocessors swoop in.

Tenebrys
The Lemonade Stand
Posted - 2009.07.18 22:33:00 - [3]
 

How do I propose that this be done? We simply nerf highsec starbases, and make it more profitable for people to come along and destroy them. Not only would this reduce the number of high-security starbases, the reduced POS fuel demand would drive macro miners out of the highsec ice-fields, amongst many other ripple effects.

Here's my suggestions on this matter:

1. Disable reinforced mode for starbases in 0.5-1.0 space. A corporation declaring war on a starbase holder should be able to crack open its victim's assets as soon as the 24-hour pre-war period has passed.
2. Control towers should be unanchorable by non-owners, just like all other starbase modules. Placeholder POS spam are a blight on the landscape in both low-security and high-security space; there should be both opportunity and incentive to remove them.
3. Enemies can quickly "demolish" exposed starbase assets, which re-packages them with little to no delay, but gives them a chance of being permanently destroyed. Once the starbase's shields are down, looting its contents are a relatively simple matter. All that's left is to make sure it's profit to loot the starbase, which brings us to...
4. NPC buy orders on starbase equipment, at 50% or so of its purchase price. High-security starbases should not be big, indestructible bubbles full of space gold. They should be treasure chests waiting for somebody to kick them open. Enough said, I think.

The expected effects of such a nerf, the way I see it:

1. Towers across New Eden highsec disappearing. With more risk of operation, and more opportunity in terrorism, the number of high-security starbase operators would be necessarily reduced. Researchers and manufacturers would be forced to form or join corporations to protect their assets, and possibly move into lower-security space.
2. Fewer highsec suppliers, more highsec market volatility. Prices on most manufactured goods would go up, as well as manufacturer profitability, to compensate for the increased operating risk.
3. Increased activity in low-and-null-sec systems, especially among industrialists. Large-scale "one-man-corp" builders are traditionally attracted to high-security space due to close proximity to markets and absence of adequate risk; increasing the risk would make low-security space more attractive to supplier operations, as well as, eventually, to buyers and traders.
4. Increased average competency of the remaining high-security suppliers. With the legions of lower-echelon carebears gone, the more rugged, watchful, clever ones would be able to flourish.

The kind of suggestions I'm offering are only preliminary ideas; an actual implementation would require far more research in order to not make a mess of the economy. But, as an industrialist who cares about EVE's economy and dislikes the stagnation seen in highsec markets, I believe that a more high-risk market would make things better for all of us.

Thanks for reading, everyone! Hope this is the right forum to post such things in.

(oh and could we please nerf freighters, keep them from undocking if the pilot is in an NPC corp or something, kthx)

XXSketchxx
Gallente
Remote Soviet Industries
Posted - 2009.07.18 22:37:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Tenebrys
Edited by: Tenebrys on 18/07/2009 22:06:17
Edited by: Tenebrys on 18/07/2009 21:29:36
edit: grr wrong button

I wanted to write about the current state of player-owned stations in high-security space. A flight through a moderately-populated system shows it to be polluted with control towers -- in a system with 40 moons, as many as 20 will have these towers squatting on them -- many of them not even online or projecting shields. The towers that are kept online, on the other hand, tend to be filled with mobile laboratories, or sometimes even a cluster of factory modules. In higher-traffic systems, an empty moon may be impossible to find.



I recently scouted for a system to put a high sec POS up near Jita. I found a system 3 jumps out that while many of the moons did have offline towers idling doing nothing and another chunk were taken for research/invention/reverse engineering/manufacturing, I did find about 30 empty moons. So....impossible? Hardly.

PC1
Posted - 2009.07.19 01:22:00 - [5]
 

Leave it alone. It's a way for newbs and casual players to enjoy the low end market and keeps them paying to play. Serious industrialists can make money working the higher end, higher risk manufacturing concerns. Jacking up the prices of low end goods might be good for you, but it isn't necessarily good for the game.

The only problem with highsec POSes might be that towers can sit there offlined virtually forever, and this creates a barrier for new players wanting to experiment with POSes, as the wardec-to-remove process is not practical. Simply requiring charters to keep the towers anchored at all would create a lot of open space. Make the tower unanchor after X days without charters and there you go.


Cellyna
Caldari
Posted - 2009.07.19 04:32:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: PC1
Leave it alone. It's a way for newbs and casual players to enjoy the low end market and keeps them paying to play. Serious industrialists can make money working the higher end, higher risk manufacturing concerns. Jacking up the prices of low end goods might be good for you, but it isn't necessarily good for the game.

The only problem with highsec POSes might be that towers can sit there offlined virtually forever, and this creates a barrier for new players wanting to experiment with POSes, as the wardec-to-remove process is not practical. Simply requiring charters to keep the towers anchored at all would create a lot of open space. Make the tower unanchor after X days without charters and there you go.




The only problem I see with this idea, is that you can fit a lot upon a lot of charters into the fuel-bay of a POS. Past that its really not a half bad idea, even though I wouldent say just unanchor them and leave them be. Maybe you could have them tossed back into their corp hanger?

Victor Maximus
Aeon Of Strife
Discord.
Posted - 2009.07.19 07:50:00 - [7]
 

While some of your ideas might be valid for the T1 market it could possibly severely influence the T2 market.

Many of the POS's you see are research POS's. These pos's are the BPC lifeline for invention. If these billion+ isk investments (150 mill per adv lab) were no longer safe you could expect to see many inventors begin to reconsider building T2 gear. It doesn't take much to mess with the T2 market and I have a feeling your suggestion would cause a universal increase in T2 prices. While I would enjoy seeing my profit margins increase I doubt most players would like to see another increase in T2 prices.

I don't see any problem with the idea of requiring even offline POS's to continue to require starbase charters. Arn't they just a license allowing you to anchor your tower in said factions space? Still needing the charters even when offline makes some sense.

BTW Features and Ideas section is here

-Vic

Caelum Mortuos
Gallente
Zero G Research and Development
Posted - 2009.07.19 10:26:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Tenebrys


The towers that are kept online, on the other hand, tend to be filled with mobile laboratories, or sometimes even a cluster of factory modules. In higher-traffic systems, an empty moon may be impossible to find.


If you must have a POS in that system, go through the current wardec mechanics or hire mercs. If it doesn't mean that much to you, don't do it. There are thousands of unoccupied moons, and they aren't 515 jumps from Jita

Quote:


These conditions indicate that a large quantity of market suppliers -- especially T1 suppliers -- exists. The effect is a buyer's market, in which prices and profit margins are necessarily low. In high-traffic regions of space such as The Forge, the market is stable and non-volatile, but supplier profitability is almost nil. As more and more pilots join EVE, these kind of buyer's-market conditions are only expected to worsen, and to spread through high-security space.




But profitable enough to make it worth running a tower. Also, high volume of empire POS doesn't mean large amounts of T1 supply, most empire pos are for research and invention, not building.

Quote:


The first reason is that the entry barriers are relatively low. A full set of the manufacturing skills needed to optimize (ten manufacturing slots, max efficiency, fast production, etc) T1 production cost take, at most, 2 months to train. This means that manufacturing stations across high-security space become inundated with builders -- builders who are often satisfied with making 500,000 ISK worth of profit out of tying up ten production slots for 24 hours.



A problem with industry skills, not POS. This needs fixed but changing POS wont fix it. Also, you'll never convince those that think 500k/day is ok that it isn't ok.

Quote:

A manufacturer seeking to maximize output volume and capacity availability can expect to shell out 200 million ISK for a small control tower, a surplus of factory modules, and fuel to run it all for a month. Another few hundred million kredits will score the manufacturer a collection of mobile laboratories, with which to optimize material and production efficiency on the blueprints he uses. In the end, it takes less than 600 million ISK, and a couple months of training, to add thineself to the legions of people flooding Motsu


I would say that 600M is quite a lot for the people you think are making 500k a day Rolling Eyes
Quote:


The second reason for this supplier overflow is that the risks associated with operating a high-security starbase are far, far too low. An individual with the sense to log on at least once every 24 hours to check for war declarations, can sleep easy knowing that his billion-ISK investment that he left floating out in the middle of space is going to still be there in the morning. In the even that someone does declare war, it's a simple matter of striking camp and packing all blueprints and starbase equipment into the nearest station until the storm blows over. Once the war has ended, the starbase can be re-launched and operations resumed as if nothing had happened. Corporations declaring war also have to make many gambles as to how much ransom their victim is willing to pay, how many valuables may be contained in the starbase, how dangerous its armament is, whether or not it will kick into reinforced mode, etc.


I thought it was only a 600M investment? Wink Sure you can probably check every 24h, but with RL etc. taking down a POS with < 24h notice is actually pretty hard

Quote:

In short, high-sec starbase industry is low-entry-barrier, low-risk, and low-profit. This allows low prices on ships and equipment and thus benefits low-sec and nullsec PVP quality-of-life, but also makes high-security space even more fantastically boring than it already is. This, I feel, is a situation that needs to stop.


T1 production doesn't need a POS, T2 production isn't low-entry Rolling Eyes

Caelum Mortuos
Gallente
Zero G Research and Development
Posted - 2009.07.19 10:28:00 - [9]
 

To be fair, I think empire POS are probably too difficult to destroy or tackle if you want to do it. I'm just kinda miffed by the fact that most of your "facts and figures" seem to just be pulled from wherever the sun isn't shining.

One of those "95% of statistics are made up on the spot" things

Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2009.07.19 11:22:00 - [10]
 

Hi sec POS are in my opinion balanced well currently. One can take it out with approx 10 battleships without major problems if there is no defending gang present. Up to 20 BS if the defender has few pos gunners, but no defending gang.

If the defenders turn up then you need significant numerical advantage over them and ofc big brass balls to "bring it". And that is good also.

Remember - POS'es is one of isk sinks in game. We like isk sinks in game.

Zuhlaetah
Posted - 2009.07.19 13:42:00 - [11]
 

OP has to be a T2 BPO owner, killing invention makers would suit this thread well. Otherwise, this is just bad.

PC1
Posted - 2009.07.20 01:22:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Cellyna

The only problem I see with this idea, is that you can fit a lot upon a lot of charters into the fuel-bay of a POS. Past that its really not a half bad idea, even though I wouldent say just unanchor them and leave them be. Maybe you could have them tossed back into their corp hanger?


Yeah, it would take some tweaking. I wouldn't increase the burden on POS owners too much, say store enough charters for two months of operation or so. After that, unanchor them and perhaps send them back to the nearest corp hanger. (Though I could live with them floating free and up for grabs.)

I think of charters like rent. If you don't pay the faction for the real estate, they should get someone who will.

Lord Fitz
Project Amargosa
Posted - 2009.07.20 11:23:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: PC1
After that, unanchor them and perhaps send them back to the nearest corp hanger. (Though I could live with them floating free and up for grabs.)


Having towers un-anchor is bad, having towers destroyed is good. Towers destroyed = isk sunk. Worst decision for the economy when they made pos mods un-anchorable, having those get destroyed helped keep a lid on inflation (somewhat). Now the same mods can keep being reused forever with only a few being replaced or lost in hangars.

If people aren't fuelling towers, they're going to be very easy to kill. If they have no mods on them, they're also going to be very easy to kill. If you want a tower spot you can war dec them, if they don't muster a defence you can easily enough kill it, if they do you can wait them out and either they are really going to be paying 'rent' in terms of having to defend and fuel a tower they're not using, or they'll take it down.

Encouraging PvP = What makes the game great. Remember every ship destroyed is one that needs to be replaced ;)

I particularly like the irony that people think a single person or couple of people should be able to take down a POS easily, while a single person or couple of people shouldn't be able to defend one. It is not difficult to take out a POS if you want to. It's not difficult to take one out if the owner isn't paying attention. It's not difficult to find one of many many free moons either provided you're not expecting to get exactly the moon you want in exactly the system you want at exactly the time you want without having to fight for it or clear a spot for it.

Quote:
The only problem with highsec POSes might be that towers can sit there offlined virtually forever, and this creates a barrier for new players wanting to experiment with POSes, as the wardec-to-remove process is not practical.


A new retailer couldn't possibly hope to open a store in the most expensive retail area in life, why should a new player expect to deploy a POS in a busy area ? There are literally tens of thousands of free moons. When we get even to 25% full, you might have a point.

Keeping a corp war decced virtually forever is cheap. You can just declare war on any corp with POS facilities and thus they either take the POS down eventually or are forced to fuel something they're not using (or let it run out and make it an easy target), or use it with valuables inside even during war. Think of strategy here, it's not hard. It is very easy to separate anyone from a moon unless they are willing, ready and able to defend it all the time.

Righteous Deeds
Posted - 2009.07.20 14:10:00 - [14]
 


Well, we're going to disagree on a few points. PVP isn't what makes the game great. It's the ability to play the game however you want that does, IMO. PVP is fun, it helps drive the economy, but there will never be a shortage of it, so I don't think it needs to be the ultimate motivation for how you handle every issue. It's not the MMO holy grail. The sandbox is. Making the game what you want.

There's room in the industrial sector for noobs. There's room in the research sector as well. If the rest of us are having problems making isk, well, we're not playing very smart. Asking some noob who just wants to learn about how POSes work on his own, maybe make a few isk, to wardec his way to real estate doesn't help the game much. And if it gets another player hooked, it's a win.

Anyway, I don't care about the issue much one way or another, and as a rule I can't stand how CCP is always nerfing/buffing existing elements of the games, rather than just adding content, but given a choice, I'd support having to pay a bill to keep the real estate locked down. Wouldn't cost me much, just a minute amount of effort



Ghoest
Posted - 2009.07.20 14:19:00 - [15]
 

The OP is a trolling idiot.

There probably is a fair discussion to be had about the relative safety of high sec POSs.
This goober showed that he wasnt part of it in his first paragraph.

Borun Tal
Minmatar
Space Pods Inc
Posted - 2009.07.20 16:23:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Tenebrys
-snip-


I agree. Everyone should play the game the way YOU want them to play. Rolling Eyes

Joe Starbreaker
M. Corp
Posted - 2009.07.20 16:56:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Tenebrys
A flight through a moderately-populated system shows it to be polluted with control towers -- in a system with 40 moons, as many as 20 will have these towers squatting on them -- many of them not even online or projecting shields.
...
These conditions indicate that a large quantity of market suppliers -- especially T1 suppliers -- exists. The effect is a buyer's market, in which prices and profit margins are necessarily low.

These two statements have no logical connection. If it was a buyer's market and margins were too low, people would stop manufacturing at POSs.


Originally by: Tenebrys
The second reason for this supplier overflow is that the risks associated with operating a high-security starbase are far, far too low. An individual with the sense to log on at least once every 24 hours to check for war declarations, can sleep easy ... In the even that someone does declare war, it's a simple matter of striking camp and packing all blueprints and starbase equipment into the nearest station until the storm blows over.

So, either way, you can get rid of the POS by declaring war. What's the problem?


 

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