EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2009-07-11 20:21
  • First Forum Visit: 2014-12-15 10:27
  • Number of Posts: 68
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

SIEGE RED

Security Status 0.3
  • The Darwin Initiative Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Dev Blog: A New Deployable From The Upwell Consortium in EVE Information Center

    If only ...

    Seriously, if only ...


    Cool

  • Selling chars 5,5m & 6,3m & 6,3m in EVE Marketplace

    Jita Price checking wrote:
    Transfer Character
    We are currently processing this transfer. The character being transferred will remain on your account until the process is complete, but will not be playable during this time.
    Character Name: Jita Price checking
    Will be completed after: 4/1/2017 5:22:08 AM
    If you did not initiate this character transfer, please file a ticket to Customer Support.


    Nicely received, cheers!

    I sent you an evemail as we discussed.

  • Selling chars 5,5m & 6,3m & 6,3m in EVE Marketplace

    Jita Price checking wrote:
    SIEGE RED wrote:
    Jita Price checking wrote:
    SIEGE RED wrote:
    Jita Price checking wrote:
    Jita Price Checking


    3B


    Accepted. let me know when you can be online to initiate the transfer


    In about 30 minutes (work), just one question - is the character on an alpha account right now (as you mentioned this)?

    Yes that is correct.

    But its no issue in regards to transfering accounts. not like it was before.
    Done it many times since alpha came out.


    Alright, was the reason I asked yes Cool

  • Selling chars 5,5m & 6,3m & 6,3m in EVE Marketplace

    Jita Price checking wrote:
    SIEGE RED wrote:
    Jita Price checking wrote:
    Jita Price Checking


    3B


    Accepted. let me know when you can be online to initiate the transfer


    In about 30 minutes (work), just one question - is the character on an alpha account right now (as you mentioned this)?

  • Selling chars 5,5m & 6,3m & 6,3m in EVE Marketplace

    Jita Price checking wrote:
    Jita Price Checking


    3B

  • Multiple characters: Rorqual/T2 hauler/research/ cap manufacturing in EVE Marketplace

    lanyaie wrote:
    up


    Offer made & accepted on:

    Feronziac
    Geranzac

    ISK and details sent.

  • Multiple characters: Rorqual/T2 hauler/research/ cap manufacturing in EVE Marketplace

    I sent you an evemail.

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    Querns wrote:
    Doc J wrote:
    Querns wrote:
    This isn't what "top-down income" means.


    First time I've seen the thread but caught my eye on this, what does top-down income mean?


    "Top-down" income refers to an alliance funding source that is collected solely by actors at the top of an organization, then is dispersed downwards onto line members. (Assuming it doesn't get embezzled.) Moongoo is the archetype of top-down income, as it's handled by the alliance's logistics dudes and line members aren't involved at all.

    This is in contrast to "bottom-up" income, where line members perform the money-making activity, and the alliance takes a small slice, usually through taxes. Ratting is the archetype of bottom-up income.

    In this instance, CCP is shifting moongoo from top-down to bottom-up income.


    Actually, no. It's the top of a chain or network hub. Not actors at the top of an organisation. There could be overlap, there could be control, rules, regulations, mechanisms - whatever. But they are not by default the same. Keep in mind that chains as well as networks are their own actors in human organisational models and structures.

  • Dev blog: Introducing Upwell Refineries in EVE Information Center

    Querns wrote:
    ll Kuray ll wrote:
    I've seen some nice spins on trying to justify this idea the biggest being the removal of top-level income for alliances. My response to that is you're doing a good job at trying to frame it in your favor but it isn't with me and I can see right through it.

    1. No matter what part of level you play Eve at you can always create top level afk income.
    I've seen alliances adopt a fee base income,
    I've seen alliance adopt ratting and mining ops where there is a certain quota of isk to generate and give to the alliance.
    I've seen alliance leaders rent out systems to corps
    I've seen alliance leaders rent out particular constellations
    I've seen alliances adopt a "pay us to keep you safe" model
    I've seen alliances own the good moons
    I've not seen many alliances cap moons that don't have materials to mine and done reactions

    So really your argument about removing top level afk alliance income is fraud as there are other ways in which alliances generate their income.

    Once you remove the sugar of the cool piece of rock that has been cut away from the moon, this is nothing but a mining operation that once again could be turned into AFK top level alliance income. Only this time more lemmings are required to be involved in meeting mind numbing mining quota's because apparently this will generate "more content"....

    Get bent.




    This isn't what "top-down income" means.


    And yet it does not invalidate the observations. Nor the underlying reality.

    But he can rest assured, CCP isn't dumb, they know the game by now. Nobody recognises the #narratives as valid arguments. Which is fine, that's an entirely different arena being played for - the focus of all this is not only entirely different, it's focused on completely different things.

  • 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.