EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2009-07-11 20:21
  • First Forum Visit: 2014-12-15 10:27
  • Number of Posts: 59
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 18

SIEGE RED

Security Status 0.3
  • The Darwin Foundation Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    Querns wrote:
    SIEGE RED wrote:
    Querns wrote:


    You're putting the cart before the horse here. Lowsec mining doesn't really occur today because there's nothing valuable to mine. Lowsec has no ihub-spawned mining anomalies, and the asteroids in their belts are pretty garbage. Asteroids in lowsec also deplete rapidly, like highsec, so there's a lot of moving involved.

    With a static, replenishing belt provided by a refinery, there's less moving, more consistency, and more value. Unless there's some as-yet-unannounced interaction between refineries and security status (a thing I seriously doubt will happen,) a lowsec moongoo belt will be the peer of its nullsec brethren. There will be exactly as much impetus to mine a lowsec belt as there will a nullsec belt. Perhaps more, since bubbles and bombs can't interrupt the mining.


    That's just one part of the picture. Keep in mind that not only are there easier ways to get resources, playstyles also differ quite a bit, and in lowsec there is no sense of control (fun to explore the existing playstyles / niches there, it all revolves around that) where it comes to mining.


    There's no requirement for CCP to maintain the playstyles of folks living in any given area of space. If there was, nullsec wouldn't have changed nearly as much as it has.


    Indeed, but it is a requirement to have a diverse behavioural environment where a multitude of playstyles exist. Whether a given playstyle is feasible, now that is an entirely different debate. As such, CCP has an interest in continuing to provide room for diversity. In truth, changing matters in such a manner that as all work and all play becomes the same everywhere it makes EVE a dull boy (bad Twin Peaks reference moment yes).

    And that, is a problem. Granted, in the long run. But resource allocation for swapping things out is also - always - a long term venture.


    Anyhow, the case in point was that ISK isn't the sole reward. It is in fact more means than goal in a very primal way. We shouldn't delude ourselves by staring at that detail level. Impetus as such is also just a means to an end, interexchangetable with any other. Making that, a complete non-argument in game design.

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    Querns wrote:


    You're putting the cart before the horse here. Lowsec mining doesn't really occur today because there's nothing valuable to mine. Lowsec has no ihub-spawned mining anomalies, and the asteroids in their belts are pretty garbage. Asteroids in lowsec also deplete rapidly, like highsec, so there's a lot of moving involved.

    With a static, replenishing belt provided by a refinery, there's less moving, more consistency, and more value. Unless there's some as-yet-unannounced interaction between refineries and security status (a thing I seriously doubt will happen,) a lowsec moongoo belt will be the peer of its nullsec brethren. There will be exactly as much impetus to mine a lowsec belt as there will a nullsec belt. Perhaps more, since bubbles and bombs can't interrupt the mining.


    That's just one part of the picture. Keep in mind that not only are there easier ways to get resources, playstyles also differ quite a bit, and in lowsec there is no sense of control (fun to explore the existing playstyles / niches there, it all revolves around that) where it comes to mining.

    Not that anybody from outside of lowsec would be that interested in going there, except if the playstyles match, for the available tiers of rewards in resource harvesting like mining. But this is a state which is derivative, it's not a root cause, if you will.

    It's a fun exploration of behaviour following mechanisms, as opposed to the other way around. One is able to reinvigorate lowsec without applying stimuli to low sec demographics to become the same as null, the other is not (instead it effectively promotes that pitfall).

    We often think that reward drives choice. It does, but we tend to not fully realise how broad "reward" is. It isn't just ISK, on the contrary. More often than not this comes long after more primary reward connectors like affirmation, identity, playstyle, mentality and so forth. Because we think, we project. And thus we assume. And those who don't, still project - just their own perception on to others Cool

    With the concept as it is currently, CCP is firmly in the corner of "we provide the mechanisms for selected targets with healthy consequences for our indexes". It's entirely understandable, but it is a pity. Then again, this is nothing new.

    Lowsec has not had much of core attention throughout the years, very often considered a transit zone, at times a dumping ground, irregularly a niche environment. Which is a bit ironic, because in contrast to null it's actually quite diverse. Sometimes lowsec is an extension of highsec, other times of null. Quite often it's a composite dynamic with different playstyles interacting. Which is very different from highsec as well as null - looking at it without recognising these things has been the underlying reason why it's not gotten that much attention, but it is also why it's been largely sheltered. Or protected, if you will. Not any longer.

    The one thing which worries me on the current state of this concept isn't how easy it is to counter, to use, to direct or even to abuse. It's that in the long run it enforces a slow but steady adopting of an organisational mold which already exists in a dominant manner elsewhere. Nullsec particularly, but increasingly also highsec (including the recent pattern of null/high entanglements which there too reinforces such developments).

    I do think that this is a shame, but also a bit of a stumbling block in the long run. EVE is diverse in many ways, and it should be. If all organic player based organisation stimuli point to the same outcome this doesn't reinforce health of the dynamic, it does the opposite. Granted, it makes it easier to calculate, to model, to capture in indexes of statistics. But it also reintroduces the old trap of having to replace one set of mechanisms which exactly the same (only minor variations, look & feel) when the indexes show saturation or staleness. Funny thing, by that time it's too late, due to groupthink's influence on collective perception, but also due to social intertia and economic effects.

    Now I can accept that CCP cannot - so to speak - allocate the resources in order to take the opposite approach (mechanisms following behaviour). But in order to avoid the known pitfalls (EVE has history in many things, aside of stupid amounts of research on all of this being available to CCP) they're going to have to provide more behavioural options. Right now, the current concept is way too static, too predictable, too easy to capture in min/max and n+1, and nothing really offsets the long term negative effects.

    So we can all keep debating the detail level of the current "as is" concept until we see blue in the face, or we can accept that the static nature of things will always be subject to ruthless min/max/n+1/narrative drama. And instead see if there's things CCP can add to the model in order to provide room for composite and diverse behaviour. Lowsec folks are going to have to be a tad more expressive though for that to begin, and null should not be so blatant with its directives & narratives.

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    I still kinda want to know if we can blow up the chunk "as is". There's got to be some room for things like sabotage, hit & run, interference, etc. Cry

    There really ought to be points or moments of vulnerability independant of structures and their state. If a small gang has to deal with the structure mechanisms to cause problems, that's kinda upping the ante beyond that level. Sure, said small gang could engage miners, but you know how that works - target denial is protocol. After that you get n+1.

    If it isnt violent, can I at least hack something? Either via roles abuse, or externally with ship+fitting+hack mechanism? This kind of mechanism seems very complicated to me, from all the math for orbital mechanics to all the gear required to control the process - got to be some way to throw a spanner in the works Cry

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    Querns wrote:
    Gevlin wrote:
    Is it possible to have moon mineral resources depleat and respawn in other locations over an extremely slow progression.
    Ie a planet will replenish x mineral over a period over time, representing the advancement of technology able to extract out of previous useless places. Ie now we are able to extract oil out of tar pits, and fracking of old wells. Also the crashing of asteroids into the moons, like PI but slow growth rates and larger deposits to mine.

    Will the refineries have to scan the surface like PI to pull up sections of moon to mine?

    This will keep the map in transition for the giants, and leave open space for smaller groups.
    IE Goons mine out cloud ring moons completely of r16 minerals and decide to move to delve just to feed their industrial engine.
    6 months later they move back cloud ring once the moons have replenished, unless the local who moved in kept the moons depleted to prevent their moons from becoming attractive.

    Also can refineries be able to jump. So after 1 moon is empty it can take 1 week to prep the station to jump. This would once again allow limited nomadic life style.




    The idea that we'd follow moon goo like this is fantasy. We'd just stay put and wait for the moongoo to come back, if your vignette was made real.

    Moongoo just isn't that important to income any more.


    Nah, you wouldn't if CCP ever were to do it properly. Any mechanical prime focus is easy to ride out, unless the feature set had a transient relation between organisational economics (taxation), demographics (activity) and subsets of geo-economics related to resource depletion/migration models (effectively introducing a non-behaviour based concept of entropy).

    If CCP were ever to deviate from their historic focus on the mechanical approach (to instigating, guiding and limiting behaviour) that would be interesting. Fortunately for current organisational models they still hold on to that (yes, easy buttons to push really), so mechanisms provide boundaries and cause behaviour to follow, as opposed to the other way around (which, admittedly, would be more in line with the original emergent dynamic concept, and actually is what was directly responsible for the high retention in the first 3-4 years as well as demographics creating its own room - if I remember Oveur's old fanfest discussions correctly).

    Right now it's only behaviour that provides entropy, so I can understand it when CCP says that this is sufficient. I guess I'd like it if it wasn't just that - if only because this slowly but certainly is compensated for with the exact same organisational models everywhere. I suppose in some ways this is why I can understand people (particularly those in lowsec) who don't feel fully comfortable with the current concept as presented in the devblog, because it does put them on the same paths of choice/consequence as null.

    It's a case of progression paths for player organisation really, rather than a matter of resources and whether we use forks or fingers for them. In the long run it isn't healthy for a closed system like EVE to provide the same progression paths everywhere.

    Don't worry about it. For whatever reasons some years ago CCP decided that developing EVE would no longer be a matter of following player behaviour pur sang, but instigating it themselves (and where not applicable inserting mechanisms based progression/choice guidance). They're not going to be as bold again as in the beginning, they don't have to. So I can't see any proper depletion/migration concept ever being introduced in such a way that you would not simply be able to sit it out as a marginal effect.

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    Manssell wrote:
    [quote=Rena'Thras]I'll ask the same for this that I've asked all along with all the Upwell Structures:

    This is all great for the large scale industrialist, and the large groups needed the changes these structure are brining (I support most of the changes), but it really screws the little guy. Just like everything else about the new structures. And yet while with each new structure a larger part of the player base is feeling left out of CCPs vision for the game, CCP is really unwilling to even acknowledge it let alone talk about it with the small groups community.


    Is it so bad that CCP implements stimuli for team play as an integral part of participation dependancies? Is it really so bad that they introduce much more subtle and healthier progression encouragements even across gameplay niches and game segments?

    One of the most common issues in the past when population went up was that ultimately it crashed harder than the peak grew because of quite a few reasons, a very notable one being a lack of triggers (if you will) for players to increase the number of connections between them and the pace of discovering encouragements/requirements for them. Another such issue was that once rooted people barely moved on or beyond the segment they ended up in.

    I know, you raise valid points which CCP also consider carefully. But they also need to consider the overall health of population development in general terms. Sure, sometimes in some places the bar is raised, but it raises it in such a manner that the age old fundamental principles rooted in economics of scale compensate very smoothly for those raised bars.

    People don't even need to be in the same corporation, I've seen systems by now where people make team based connections regardless of organisation/identity.


    Look, I'm sorry, but the little guy could get screwed much much worse. With the concept as is, at least he gets the choice to feel something or not. Proverbially speaking, obviously. Where it comes to solo play, sure, structures might not be it for that. Then again, not far from Amarr there's a few systems where some solo players run their own structures (citadel, ec's, pos). They have a little market between them, they team up with others, individual and corporate. They do their thing, yet they still make connections and thus get the use of such things for their own enjoyment.

    Yeah, it can be tough for the little guy. EVE is real, so no surprise there. But unlike in the past, he's not getting shafted. CCP has upped the ante, but while creating room for the little guy in very interesting manners.

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Hi again folks. Thanks as always for participating in the thread.
    Let's do a bit of a Q&A to answer some of the questions we've been seeing come up repeatedly.



    But .. what about the most important question of all?

    Can we blow up the chunk moving to the refinery so we can harvest bitter tears?

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    Salvos Rhoska wrote:
    Little guy gets kicked in the nads again.

    Reverse-Malcanis' Law in effect.


    Well, duh - EVE is real.

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    Rena'Thras wrote:
    I'll ask the same for this that I've asked all along with all the Upwell Structures:

    WHEN WILL THERE BE A SMALL SIZE?

    .

    It was mentioned earlier by some people, but this means people that run small POSes now or smaller Corporations or industrial players now have to join a big Corp or Alliance in order to do this stuff. Right now, you can drop a small POS in Lowsec as an individual or small Corporation and work into the moon mining game, as well as dropping a small POS in Highsec if you want your own personal refining station.

    After this change, you're going from a 150M investment into a several billion ISK facility, something like a 10-100x increase in cost for people, yeah?

    I've always liked the idea of smaller groups being able to do things, and I love personal deployable structures, so I feel like there should be SMALL structures added to the Upwell lines. The fact that this is going to essentially phase out SMALL POSes, yet there is no SMALL version, I find very strange and not really defensible as a position unless the goal of EVE is to tell small groups or individual players that they aren't welcome in it.

    Surely that isn't the intention...?

    One can make the argument for Citadels not having a small size due to their nature. Engineering complexes the argument isn't as good, but it might still hold some water. But as we get more and more structures and get closer and closer to removing POSes from the game, CCP, you guys really need to look at throwing a bone to small corps and players that need smaller, cheaper, and more manageable facilities for their needs.


    Yes, that's the intention.

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    TheSmokingHertog wrote:


    Are we playing the same EVE?




    Everybody plays his or her EVE Cool

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    Querns wrote:
    h4kun4 wrote:

    It might kill SRP, especially of smaller entities or Lowsec entities. - Buff to large nullsec Alliances
    It might render Lowsec mooning pointless because seriously - who mines in Lowsec? - Buff to large nullsec alliances


    Perhaps you should adapt? Our organization has been de-emphasizing the portion of our income that comes from moongoo for years now, in anticipation of this change. The signs have been there for years; you just have to think a little further out from where your next Level 5 mission or travelling supercap gank comes from.

    From all the apoplectic posting here and from without, it seems like lowsec entities have the adaptability of my last bowel movement.


    It raises an interesting set of questions. Adaptation and innovation are always a necessity - but is it healthy if every player dynamic falls within the same guiding paths and ends up adopting the same kind of organisational model. I'm not so sure whether the underlying issue with the low sec people's responses is the passive isk dependancy, there may very well be much more to it in terms of having to become something they never wanted to be. Deliberately so. Granted, this too is a topic of adapting to changes, but it is also a topic of niche gameplay and connected choices.

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    TigerXtrm wrote:
    Oh, not entirely unimportant.

    Please tell me that Rorquals will be able to dock in the large refinery? Even if its the only capital ship that is able to dock there, surely a capital ship that is designed for resource gathering should be able to dock at a refinery. CCPlease.


    Maybe at the large structures, definitely not at the medium ones.

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    Querns wrote:
    Hilti Enaka wrote:
    WTF is Fozzie doing.

    You do realise this is a game right? You do realise people sign in to escape horrible ******* mudane interactions with work, wives and kids....

    **** this game I so looking forward to this and left incredibly disappointed. Your also feeding the ******* goats in high sec who can IsBox the hell out of their clients and make easy quick risk free wins. Let's all just be ******* gankers.


    You do realize that none of the mining stuff in this devblog is going to be in highsec, right? All highsec gets from this is a reprocessing structure.


    And just maybe, compression tax Cool That's a nice bone to throw, no?

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    Leo Augustus wrote:
    There are two issues at play here.

    Moon Mining

    Reactions and t2 production...

    Agreed, moon mining is very passive income. As much as I hate the thought of introducing serious mining into t2 production, I can see where the thought is coming from. This might also equalize prices across moons, as r16 and r8 mats might actually be in demand owing to labor shortages.

    I still think the concept of generating "content" by forcing relatively defenseless ships to sit at a known area at a specified time is very lacking, but that's what we have with entosising and the nerf of off grid boosts.

    There's two types pvp... pvp for fun, which industrialists don't generally revel in, and there's pvp to save your system, structures, sov, etc. Industrialists and political powers will fight and finance to the death if only to keep from having to redo their spreadsheets. To my mind, that's real content, but to each his own. With asset safety, a lot of content has been reduced to miner tackled, save or don't save him.

    Reacting is not really passive income, requiring substantial logistics, daily maintenance, upkeep of cyno and trade alts, and active regional defense. Until now, it was essentially separate from typical t2 production with the vast majority of t2 builders beginning at finished reactions or even components. It is, however, a living a determined spreadsheeter could achieve largely on one toon if part of a cooperative alliance.

    Moving reactions into the industry UI really turns it into T1 production. You've just added a new class of asteroids and two entirely redundant steps to the typical process. Instead of reaction - component - ship, it's first level reaction, final reaction, components, ships.

    This reduces the complexity of t2 production and increases the redundancy and tedium... more flavors of asteroids/minerals, more steps in process, but no unique process, substantive investment, or expertise... just a skill and a citadel. It's akin to mining relic sites for relic dust that a 5M bpo turns into ancient salvage.

    If it made any sense to me, I'd try to be on board.

    When did I miss the outcry about there not being enough mining required in Eve? Who has been begging for more 80Msp proteus vs 6m sp npc corp mining alt "rich content" pvp?

    Who has been clamoring for redundancy in t2 production?

    I'm serious, someone please explain to me, like I'm an idiot, what the point is. I keep expecting CCP to evemail me explaining how they've totally reconsidered given all my excellent insights, but so far, nuthin.. lol



    The first bit, it's a classic terminology or language problem. Different perspectives use different terms and focus on different reception of those. While many players may or may not just assume things, I don't think CCP does. At least not anymore.

    In regards to the second bit, that's classic cui bono. Who benefits. Combine that with how CCP approaches the statistics of health, and what their prime instrument of feedback tests is.

    And yes, I agree that none of this is really new, it's just replacement mechanisms without instigating functional change. It's a big thing, but it is symbolic in its replacement of current affairs - at least with this concept "as is".


    Incidentally, mining for mysterious reasons remains popular throughout the ages. I suppose it's a bit like being able to be in space, flying your own ship, but when the wife or kid or homework calls you can step out. It's accessible, low key participation, easy consumption. Ideal to build upon for a growing population which in broad terms does not go as deep as - for example - high level player groups or EVE junkies. I get why mining is an obvious thing to look at for CCP. I would wager that in all the surveys they've had quite a bit of interesting responses in the line of "do not change mining zomg".

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    Aryth wrote:
    Moongoo represents the smallest part of our income for our alliance. Shifting it to be a group activity that others can come party crash is about as good as you can get in EVE. More things in space that go boom is always a good thing. We all abused the top down income stream for all of these years. Time to let bottom up income flourish even more than it already is.

    Smaller entities will indeed have to adjust. Invite others to come mine and tax them. Shift to other income streams. Wail and gnash your teeth. The choice is yours.




    Yes, but I presume you can see how this concept creates so called expanded boundaries for geo-demographical growth. The teamwork dependancies require applying a uniform approach towards resource consumption - we're humans, we go min/max and n+1.

    It'll create a pull factor for higher population. Not a big one, but scale applies, so add taxes and you have one hell of an added cow to milk. I can completely understand why many groups like the very idea, because it's easy to use the way we're used to.

    Whether that is really healthy in the long run, well, that is a question. I do think it is fair to say that creating systems which either allow for or cause CCP to only look back years later hasn't exactly had great precedents. To say the least.

    I can understand some of the comments from low sec groups here. In a way some of them are very much in tune with both behaviour and dependancy of specialisation present throughout EVE. They see that they will have to adopt organisational models, as well as behaviour which is pretty much the same as what we know from null. It kinda makes sense for them to not be too thrilled this way.

    They too get a theoretical bonus potential similar to null in terms of pull factor for demographics - yet it still is lowsec. We can't compare that environment really with null or high, thus we can't really think it would be "ok" to have them magically end up the same as null groups that scale. If anything, and I think - I forget the alt name - Helen who's Eve's first ever Aeon got splashed in the drones once upon a time in ancient times - made a very good point. Even if those niche groups follow function, they will still become just short term targets much the same way as the current market hub citadels - an arena which they can't match.

    The intended consequences by CCP are mostly clear, and in terms of shaking things up while also smoothing things out it isn't bad, it's actually very close to good. But in EVE it's always the effects and the long term that matters for health of the dynamic itself.

    There's nothing wrong with adaptation. On the contrary, change is and should be the only constant. Question is, does this current concept really introduce change in its effects? Not really, it doesn't instigate new behaviour or diversity of / in behaviour, it stimulates adopting the same behaviour. And that, in the long run, creates the very same problems which POS also created over time. Which is kinda frustrating, because CCP got really close with this concept. It's a bit of irony that many years ago they disproved player suggest concepts which were exactly the same as this CCP introduced concept on this very reasoning. Yet now this appears a little forgotten.

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    Orakkus wrote:
    SIEGE RED wrote:
    Querns wrote:

    Moons will be "freed up" in the sense that it makes zero sense to pay fuel every month to hold a moon that you lack the manpower to exploit.


    I remember that argument from several times over Cool It never came to be. Humans and their behaviour, what can I say. Maybe it's time for an invasion of aliens - might be better odds at getting some common sense in this universe.



    Your previous post compared this to POSes, but I don't agree with that comparison. POSes required fuel, yes, but outside of that it is a passive isk generator that needs only a single person to maintain. This new system requires multiple people (and don't say bots, because this would be the perfect bot trap in CCP's mind) and there is only finite amount of time a single pilot can give. Not saying the smarter alliances won't find some way to mitigate or even find some financial advantage, but we can only speculate from what we know.

    And so far, this would break up the stranglehold on a lot of moons.


    Let me clarify, I'm not looking that much at the mechanics of an introduction like this. I'm looking at it from a behavioural angle. As CCP often mentions, the reason why EVE works is because it's essentially an emergent dynamic - a closed environment where behaviour dictates function. Which is subtly but significantly different from a mechanical approach where behaviour follows form follows function.

    Even just within a mechanical approach, the very same variables apply. Teamwork, resource requirements, risk assesments, combined use paths, and so forth. POS Moon Mining was actually once presented by a CCPian as bot proof. Well ... *cough*

    It's a design/development challenge either way, they need to introduce mechanisms that follow behavioural options and choices, while also subtly guiding those - and sometimes providing boundaries. The mechanical approach however is always in line with EVE's fundamentel model of functional dependancies, and as such vulnerable to us players going apeshit as usual. Economics of scale applies, N+1 applies, and there's the very same behavioural effects which we've seen demonstrated as being negative (even unhealthy) like enforcing the same organisational models on all (regardless of niche of play) and the pitfalls of grind.

    As I said, they're incredibly close to something which would avoid the known stumbling blocks - no pun intended :P From a des/dev angle this mechanical approach comes extremely close to a functional behavioural model. But because it just misses that mark, the consequences may be nice in the statistical reporting and analysis, but the behavioural effects are the same as before/current. Thus making this a matter of resource allocation to realistically achieve only a short term effect.

    Lowsec will be affected by this, absolutely. As a composite niche of play the stimuli generated by the current form of this concept can only reinforce the pattern where organisational states of null sec are copied - or where local dynamics are replaced by the proverbial long arms of null sec (in a very similar manner to what I predicted to follow when citadels were introduced for hub behaviour, see Perimeter, Amarr, etc, which are increasingly subject to those patterns).

    Null won't really be affected. The organisational and behavioural models there can easily cope with the mechanical changes. Expensive, sure. Does it require much adaptation? Not really. In terms of behaviour itself it only reinforces status quo. Yes, it creates room/incentive for more population, but no realistic triggers for behaviour that instigates dynamic shifts. Nice for the young kids now to have a future mining in null, nice for taxes, but it's the same pattern as when pos based moon mining made its shift from private to corp to alliance use.

    Highsec is a non-factor, as it appears. Which more or less makes sense really.

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
    Moons should be mineable anywhere but hisec (the Empires control those moons). If CCP want WH's to be different in moongoo terms make the detonated crusticles produce random elements in random yields, varied based upon WH class.


    Careful, by that argument it would follow that players should be able to at some point strike deals with the empires for moon mining licenses - oh wait :P

    It says a lot that CCP strongly considers keeping this concept out of highsec. It pretty much shows their expectations on function of these mechanisms as boundaries for set behaviour. Which as I explained earlier, is for this kind of model the incorrect order of things. Understandable, but it makes it a repeat application of something which has only ever reinforced status quo and the adoption of the same organisational models (plus n+1) everywhere.

    The WH statement does sound interesting. Feels a bit like gas mining.

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    Querns wrote:

    Moons will be "freed up" in the sense that it makes zero sense to pay fuel every month to hold a moon that you lack the manpower to exploit.


    I remember that argument from several times over Cool It never came to be. Humans and their behaviour, what can I say. Maybe it's time for an invasion of aliens - might be better odds at getting some common sense in this universe.

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    zluq zabaa wrote:


    Read all the posts, look at who is writing it and you will basically see the types:
    * already rich SOV Null Entity guy loves the idea, trying hard to convince others it'll be great and hide that only he will profit
    * Lowsec Dudes shocked how CCP again shifts to a little less fun, a little more grind
    * Wormholies trying to get additional source of income (tbf, WH is risky enough for most so it should pay out)
    * Highseccers dreaming of the day they can make Null profits with less risk (pro tip: Sov Nullsec is already less risky than Highsec)

    The one good thing that could come out of it is the end of largely passive income for the already rich... Muahahahahaha!!!111
    It just forces them to behave more like other Null Lords and find mining contractors willing to pay to be allowed mining their fields for some margin of profit.

    Any small-time guy or gal who already got moisty, do you really think that with the current outlines anything apart from Ninja-Mining will suddenly become profitable or even doable? Do you really think that any Alliance will allow anyone to just use moons in "their" area, wether they use them or not? If people can't make a profit for themselves, it doesn't mean that they won't be motivated destroying your efforts to make some. If it was any different you'd all be already out there Moon Mining with the current mechanics (some are, which is good, but it will be harder for them in the future).


    Duh, I thought this was pretty clear already. Doesn't take a genius, EVE has experience with the introduction of this kind of systemic mechanisms with origins in mechanical (as opposed to behavoural) focus. It's an exact repeat of the POS Moon Mining introduction once upon a time.


    @ CCP, it's been a long road and you've learned a lot, New Eden and you are better for it. But as it stands now, this is a conceptual catch22 which seems to have sprung from something which I haven't seen in a long time: an approach from mechanical to behavioural, whereas the awesome experience built up with this behavioural pressure cooker called EVE demonstrates that the approach should be the other way around.

    That prevents stumbling into perception problems as well as the old adagio of n+1, but it also provides balances between the metrics and indexes versus the actual required dynamic nature of the pressure cooker.

    It should be clear that just about every response you are going to get is geared around interests, you know this. It isn't hard to extrapolate behavioural effects from the current state of proposed changes and introductions.

    The gist of it is that it promotes short term upheaval at a cost of long term affirmation of status quo behaviour. Yes, it introduces new conflict niches, but you cannot look at those without also looking at the frame they exist in and the dependencies shared by the people operating those frames. Yes, I can see the consequences for the precious indexes, but this state follows the same pattern as the original POS concepts introduced once upon a time very very very long ago.

    To be blunt, I like the concept. I can see where it is coming from (literally, I've seen ancient player proposals on the old forums and friggin Google Docs that are an exact match for this - but yes, I can also see the line of thinking, but keep in mind that in mechanical design focus form follows function, while you essentially deal with behaviour). But the direction of that line has the wrong starting point. You're looking at consequence models, whereas a decade plus of EVE demonstrates that it is the effects that matter. Subtle but significant difference.

    The irony here is that this current state of what is presented would actually be as required for instigating a pattern of dynamic shifts for recurring conflict niches (and catalysts) if you added resource migration/depletion to the mix. How odd. Are you sure this isn't something on the drawing board? Cause from this behavioural approach the mechanisms follow a challenge (as opposed to a support) function. I know, the old fears pop up. Blue donut. But consider scarcity effects on economics of scale. It makes things blow up. It's why the very concept of proxy wars was invented by humans for crying out loud :P Why institutional corruption is a factor of both conflict and entropy. Need I go on? See how close you are with this concept, yet *just* that bit off?

    And that's not just more fun and more activity without enforcing the same organisational behaviour on every existing niche big and small, it's also a lot healthier in terms of resource allocation. After all - with the caveat that you're not thinking about migration/depletion - you're just replacing one set of mechanical constraints with another on a larger scale. I know, no more legacy code issues. But it's still a trap of resource allocation and setting priorities for design down the road. While everybody behaves in accordance to fixed boundaries that do not change. Status quo.


    There's a thing called dependancy management for geo-economics which interestingly is also present in group psychology (as well as other fields like political economics, geo-politics et alii). You're *this* close with this concept to applying that effectively, but if it isn't a full match, it only reinforces static consumption and control. So either something has to be added to the mix in order to put behavioural focus first, or we're back to migration/depletion.


    Keep in mind, I don't think this will be read - everything seems to be taking place on Reddit and Twitter, neither of which are really suitable for the feedback processes you appear to be asking for - but hey, I'm old in EVE, so it'll be interesting to see if the next communication shows any hint of processing feedback routines Cool

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Hey folks. Thanks for the feedback and questions so far! I'll be doing a larger Q&A response at a later time but for now one quick answer to a question that's coming up a lot:

    We currently plan to phase out siphons since they don't really fit with the new system (there will be much more direct ways to steal moongoo). Siphons were a solid attempt at achieving a worthy goal, but for a number of reasons that particular implementation was doomed to extremely niche status. We think that overall direct spaceship interaction will be a more fun way of engaging in guerilla attacks against moon mining infrastructure.


    Wait, what? Sucking IS a bad thing? Dang Oops

    On the bright side, I can see the point.

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    Tetsel wrote:
    CCPls:
    What about Siphons ?
    What about Siphons ?
    What about Siphons ?
    What about Siphons ?
    What about Siphons ?
    What about Siphons ?
    What about Siphons ?
    What about Siphons ?
    What about Siphons ?
    What about Siphons ?
    What about Siphons ?
    What about Siphons ?
    What about Siphons ?
    What about Siphons ?
    What about Siphons ?
    What about Siphons ?

    Thx


    Sucking is apparently not a bad thing.