# A significant update to Industry **URL:** \ **Category:** Dev Blogs\ **Tags:** feedback, official\ **Created:** [March 26, 2021, 3:00pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-significant-update-to-industry/302303 "2021-03-26T15:00:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2021, 1:32pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-significant-update-to-industry/302303/275 "2021-03-28T13:32:53Z")
> [@Xuixien](#): > > The gain is a slow in capital proliferation. First of all: as at least 2 members of the CSM pointed out yesterday on The Meta Show, with changes to capital mining coming in soon, this _isn’t_ at all guaranteed to slow down capital production. Second: the gain in question is to the _industrialist_, the person CCP is asking to jump through more hoops and yet keep paying them every month. More work and more complexity for gameplay that’s no more engaging or interesting, provides no more of a dopamine release. That’s _bad_ game design. It disincentivizes playing EVE as an industrialist. There’s a reason one of the most common descriptions of this update is “The path for aspiring builders in New Eden will be clearer than ever – DON’T!” ---
**Author:** ![Aliea\_Konovalev](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/aliea_konovalev/32/250634_2.png) [@Aliea\_Konovalev](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Aliea_Konovalev)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2021, 1:44pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-significant-update-to-industry/302303/276 "2021-03-28T13:44:18Z")
I suppose they think by making industry harder in the short term, supply will drop and prices will rise making industry more viable in the future. Which I’m sure it will for the big alliances at least. ---
**Author:** ![Vaendil\_Reyksen](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/vaendil_reyksen/32/259961_2.png) [@Vaendil\_Reyksen](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Vaendil_Reyksen)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2021, 1:44pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-significant-update-to-industry/302303/277 "2021-03-28T13:44:55Z")
> [@Brian\_BoBeck](#): > > lol all ships are going to affected by these changes, and they are all going to be more expensive. Unless you are just sitting in station… I’m not just sitting in station. I log in, add skills to the Skill Queue and log back off. Mining, P.I, industry, ratting, hauling… none of that interest me. It’s just a waste of time. I only want to do PvP and fly in null but I don’t need to waste my time flying ships that put me at a disadvantage against ships that are 100x better than mine against pilots that have 50mil more SP than I have. This lightweight is still in training, not ready to do anything in game, basically worthless for another year or so. So ships are going to cost more, eh? Well, that means that when I do get to undock and fight it’s going to take twice as long to replace my ship. Good, I have better things to do than play EVE non-stop anyways. ---
**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2021, 2:07pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-significant-update-to-industry/302303/278 "2021-03-28T14:07:43Z")
Hah. As if industry wasn’t viable before? We don’t just conjure ships out of nothing, after all. Yes, some of the margins are thin, but that’s because _players_ set the prices, and they’re willing to accept thin margins in order to make money. They’ll still accept thin margins on the open market, in order to beat the competition. That’s not going to change. The only way industry profit margins increase is through cartels. What drives profit margins down is competition. What raises profit margins is when producers agree not to compete. And yes, Ken, Innominate, and Dunk all agreed yesterday that this will create another layer of ‘haves v have-nots’. If you’re already in the industry game and you’ve got the money to just _immediately_ purchase the injectors and the new blueprints, you’ll be making _even more_ money than before. If you _don’t_? Well, the barriers to entry just got higher, and the road to try to catch up with the established producers just got longer. You will never catch up, you will never really pull even with them. If you’re not _already_ an established, profitable industrialist, this change is… ‘just don’t bother’. ---
**Author:** ![Xuixien](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/xuixien/32/416896_2.png) [@Xuixien](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Xuixien)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2021, 2:12pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-significant-update-to-industry/302303/279 "2021-03-28T14:12:48Z")
> [@Arrendis](#): > > Second: the gain in question is to the _industrialist_, the person CCP is asking to jump through more hoops and yet keep paying them every month. More work and more complexity for gameplay that’s no more engaging or interesting, provides no more of a dopamine release. Only if you build battleships/capitals. > [@Arrendis](#): > > That’s _bad_ game design. It disincentivizes playing EVE as an industrialist. There’s a reason one of the most common descriptions of this update is “The path for aspiring builders in New Eden will be clearer than ever – DON’T!” So I just joined my friend’s corp, right? And now I’m a recruiter, and I really want to see the corp grow. At the same time, I want to help newbros. 🤔 I know! We can recruit newbros and give them free fully fit T1 ships to play with. But we live in Solitude and building things sucks. ☹ After the changes were announced I rushed to Jita to buy a small library of BPOs. I’ve never been much of a builder, and now I have 3 characters researching BPOs in anticipation of how awesome this change will be. ---
**Author:** ![Shloma\_Nibberia](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/shloma_nibberia/32/244628_2.png) [@Shloma\_Nibberia](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Shloma_Nibberia)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2021, 2:15pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-significant-update-to-industry/302303/280 "2021-03-28T14:15:30Z")
I wouldn’t think they are bad devs per se (awful launch day bugs aside) however their practices are quite substandard for the size of their projects. Watching from afar for about 4 years now I am fairly convinced that they have serious issues in their production pipeline, else there wouldn’t be that much trouble with giving promises that will never be held or continually relesasing (very meh) skins for ships which takes the guys over at reddit less than 15 minutes to create with a twist that they look quite more professional. Which leads me to my suspicion that ultimately, they are having severe issues with management, not development since it can’t possibly take you 10 years to fix a game. Let’s also not forget that they sold out to a Korean studio that pursues business practices that closely resemble all deals, bundles (damn you SP bundle) and log-in incentives that you can now see in-game. I wouldn’t expect this to stop in the near future either - it will rather get worse. ---
**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2021, 2:27pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-significant-update-to-industry/302303/281 "2021-03-28T14:27:35Z")
> [@Xuixien](#): > > Only if you build battleships/capitals. Alphas have been able to build battleships. Now they won’t be. > [@Xuixien](#): > > So I just joined my friend’s corp, right? And now I’m a recruiter, and I really want to see the corp grow. At the same time, I want to help newbros. 🤔 I know! We can recruit newbros and give them free fully fit T1 ships to play with. But we live in Solitude and building things sucks. ☹ > > After the changes were announced I rushed to Jita to buy a small library of BPOs. I’ve never been much of a builder, and now I have 3 characters researching BPOs in anticipation of how awesome this change will be. Which does not, in _any_ way, address the point of ‘more complexity without any gain to the industrialist’. The fact that you’re willing to get into the game— **ahead** of the changes, mind you—means nothing, except maybe that you’re exactly the kind of masochist CCP is counting on _all_ industrialists being. > [@Shloma\_Nibberia](#): > > Let’s also not forget that they sold out to a Korean studio that pursues business practices that closely resemble all deals, bundles (damn you SP bundle) and log-in incentives that you can now see in-game. I wouldn’t expect this to stop in the near future either - it will rather get worse. CCP were doing that _long_ before PA were. The original form of PLEX was one of the pioneering MMO microtransactions. Before CCP, the idea of ‘buy a thing with $$ that you can sell in-game!’ _didn’t exist_. People keep thinking PA is behind all this crap. It’s like thinking Pele was inspired by David Beckham. ---
**Author:** ![Xuixien](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/xuixien/32/416896_2.png) [@Xuixien](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Xuixien)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2021, 2:36pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-significant-update-to-industry/302303/282 "2021-03-28T14:36:00Z")
> [@Arrendis](#): > > And yes, Ken, Innominate, and Dunk all agreed yesterday that this will create another layer of ‘haves v have-nots’. If you’re already in the industry game and you’ve got the money to just _immediately_ purchase the injectors and the new blueprints, you’ll be making _even more_ money than before. If you _don’t_? Well, the barriers to entry just got higher, and the road to try to catch up with the established producers just got longer. You will never catch up, you will never really pull even with them. Yes… it takes money to make money, the haves and have nots, the rich and the poor, the big player and the little guys. Welcome to 10,000 years of human history. Mark 14:7 - “_For the poor will always be among you._” We haven’t figured out a socioeconomic structure that solves that problem. Asking CCP to do so is a pretty tall order, and not particularly fair. I do question this obsession with “catching up” with the richest people in the game. Why do you think you’re entitled to that? Also, where you see barriers I just see opportunities. PI is going to increase in value. So will fuel blocks and by extension, PI and ice products. Exploration and gas harvesting will increase in value. Where you see barriers I see points of entry. Strange. > [@Arrendis](#): > > Alphas have been able to build battleships. Now they won’t be. So? > [@Arrendis](#): > > Which does not, in _any_ way, address the point of ‘more complexity without any gain to the industrialist’. But it does, right? Because the production of frigates to battlecruisers just got a hell of a lot simpler. They all have the same required inputs and those inputs were streamlined and simplified. I can build all the Punishers I want from HiSec and LowSec ores. > [@Arrendis](#): > > The fact that you’re willing to get into the game— **ahead** of the changes, mind you—means nothing, except maybe that you’re exactly the kind of masochist CCP is counting on _all_ industrialists being. See, I’m saying one thing to you, that disconfirms what you’re saying, and you’re just not even noticing and continuing on your rant. At this point I’m doubtful we can have a meaningful discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Shloma\_Nibberia](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/shloma_nibberia/32/244628_2.png) [@Shloma\_Nibberia](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Shloma_Nibberia)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2021, 2:42pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-significant-update-to-industry/302303/283 "2021-03-28T14:42:09Z")
> CCP were doing that _long_ before PA were. The original form of PLEX was one of the pioneering MMO microtransactions. Well this is all standard today, just as you described. But to be more specific: PLEX is a concept I don’t disagree with but I completely forgot to expand on this by referring to the facilitation of ISK (PLEX) gambling which they think they can exploit as some kind of a legal grey area that I forgot to add which is my original point I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2021, 3:00pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-significant-update-to-industry/302303/284 "2021-03-28T15:00:15Z")
> [@Xuixien](#): > > Yes… it takes money to make money, the haves and have nots, the rich and the poor, the big player and the little guys. Welcome to 10,000 years of human history. Mark 14:7 - “_For the poor will always be among you._” We haven’t figured out a socioeconomic structure that solves that problem. Asking CCP to do so is a pretty tall order, and not particularly fair. Lol. I’m not asking them to do that. I’m asking them _not to make it worse_. Just because there will _always_ be have-nots, that doesn’t mean creating an all-new underclass is a good move, either in terms of game design _or_ player retention. > [@Xuixien](#): > > I do question this obsession with “catching up” with the richest people in the game. Why do you think you’re entitled to that? Hi, I’m a director in Goonswarm. I don’t _need_ to catch up. This isn’t about _me_ at all. This is about the knock-on effects in terms of player retention, gameplay experience, and the overall health of the game. CCP’s _intent_—to make the progression in industry more streamlined and to try to make all aspects of industry as valid a way to make money in terms of ISK based on effort over time are good, but the execution is _not_. Just like the execution on dozens of other well-intentioned changes over the last decade. Which we told them about ahead of time. And they ignored. Just like they’ll ignore the problems with this one. And then, just like the blackout, trollceptors, Rorquals, and Fozziesov, they’ll claim ‘nobody could have predicted these problems’. > [@Xuixien](#): > > Also, where you see barriers I just see opportunities. PI is going to increase in value. So will fuel blocks and by extension, PI and ice products. Exploration and gas harvesting will increase in value. Where you see barriers I see points of entry. Strange. PI is going to increase in value, yes. In terms of absolute #s, it certainly will. In terms of ‘what can that ISK _buy_ you?’ No, it won’t. Because as prices on one set of components, and thus, final products, rise, prices on the things you get with that final product rise as well. It’s like saying ‘oh, but the price of oil will go up, that’s good because I’m invested in BP!’ without stopping to consider what the increase in transportation costs does to food prices, etc etc, and how the net effect is really just to make the _money_ have _less_ value. > [@Xuixien](#): > > So? Two things: First, CCP has long sworn by the philosophy of ‘if you could do it before the changes, you will still be able to do it after’. For example: ‘Battlecruisers’ was originally a single skill. It was not a prerequisite for flying Battleships. When CCP split ‘Battlecruisers’ into the four ‘[Racial] Battlecruiser’ skills, they changed the requirements on '[Racial] Battleships so that the skills would require the new battlecruiser skills. However, if you already had the battleship skill trained, you didn’t suddenly lose the ability to use it until you trained up the battlecruiser skill, because CCP held to that philosophy. _This_ change violates that principle. I don’t think it’s wrong to call CCP out on it when they decide to violate a principle that CCP has many times sworn they’d _never_ violate. Secondly, if the intention is to provide a clear progression path and streamline production training for new players, then suddenly locking them off from something they were previously able to do… doesn’t do that. It becomes a bait-and-switch, and it’s not hard to see how that can drive them out of the game. Driving new players out of the game is _bad_, because you know, we _need_ new players. Every game does, and EVE—according to CCP—has relatively terrible retention numbers _already_. > [@Xuixien](#): > > But it does, right? Because the production of frigates to battlecruisers just got a hell of a lot simpler. They all have the same required inputs and those inputs were streamlined and simplified. I can build all the Punishers I want from HiSec and LowSec ores. No, it doesn’t. You need to invest more skill training now, and the required inputs weren’t ‘simplified’, only standardized. And if you’re banking on ‘I can build all the Punishers I want’… well, good luck getting an actual return on your investment any time this decade. Profit margins are already thin because of competition, and that’s not going to change. Increased raw profit numbers isn’t actually beneficial when it comes with currency devaluation. > [@Xuixien](#): > > See, I’m saying one thing to you, that disconfirms what you’re saying Except you’re not. You’re saying something that completely sidesteps what I’m saying: that additional complexity of gameplay needs to provide additional engagement, or it’s just introducing repetitive tedium and _work_, not _play_, which makes people want to engage in the activity less. You’re talking about the in-game effects, I’m talking about the _in-player_ effects. You are not in _any_ was ‘disconfirming’ my point. You’re not even addressing it. > [@Shloma\_Nibberia](#): > > the facilitation of ISK (PLEX) gambling which they think they can exploit as some kind of a legal grey area that I forgot to add which is my original point I guess. If you’re talking about the Hypernet… don’t even bother. Is it a legal grey area? Absolutely. Is it bad? Even more absolutely. Did PA have _anything_ to do with it? **Not in the least.** Hilmar went out there in… I want to say Amsterdam, but it might have been Berlin or Toronto… and talked up how _CCP Games_ was going to shake up the industry because they had ‘invented a new trading paradigm that can be used in the real world as well as in EVE Online’. Those are, if not his _exact_ words, damned close to them. And then that ‘trading paradigm’ turned out to be the Hypernet. Hilmar _literally_ claimed CCP invented the _raffle_. That, really, tells you all you need to know about just exactly _who_ is looking to squeeze every drop from every stone. ---
**Author:** ![Shloma\_Nibberia](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/shloma_nibberia/32/244628_2.png) [@Shloma\_Nibberia](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Shloma_Nibberia)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2021, 3:26pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-significant-update-to-industry/302303/285 "2021-03-28T15:26:45Z")
Damn boy. I guess they really have a management issue then that can, as opposed to my suspicion, not at all be attributed to Korean influence. ---
**Author:** ![Aliea\_Konovalev](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/aliea_konovalev/32/250634_2.png) [@Aliea\_Konovalev](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Aliea_Konovalev)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2021, 3:29pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-significant-update-to-industry/302303/286 "2021-03-28T15:29:52Z")
Plex came about because they couldn’t keep up with the isk sellers everywhere and wanted a piece of the action. ---
**Author:** ![Xuixien](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/xuixien/32/416896_2.png) [@Xuixien](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Xuixien)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2021, 3:31pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-significant-update-to-industry/302303/287 "2021-03-28T15:31:56Z")
> [@Arrendis](#): > > Lol. I’m not asking them to do that. I’m asking them _not to make it worse_. Just because there will _always_ be have-nots, that doesn’t mean creating an all-new underclass is a good move, either in terms of game design _or_ player retention. But it’s not making it worse. It’s simplifying large sectors of industry and creating more points of entry for people, right? A great diversity of inputs (aka, raw materials, PI, etc) will have value now. You keep glossing over this. This is like 80% of the changes… The 20% of the changes that make things more complex only affect large ships. This follows CCPs design philosophy in recent years where they want complexity to increase dramatically as you approach ‘high end’ game play. Also, decoupling the value of ships is an immensely beneficial change that allows CCP to tweak the prices of different hulls without affecting other hulls. They can increase the price of Titans by increasing the gas and reactions needed and those won’t have much impacts on the price of frigates. This reduces development debt and that funny problem EVE has where every little thing you change affects 10,000 other things in unpredictable ways. > [@Arrendis](#): > > This is about the knock-on effects in terms of player retention If it’s easier for new players to build things - in particularly the things they can fly - how does it hurt NPR? I mean a newbie with a Venture and testes larger than acorns can jump into LowSec, mine some Jaspet, jump back to HiSec, mine some basic ores, and build all the Rifters he wants. How is that driving newbies away from the game? > [@Arrendis](#): > > CCP’s _intent_—to make the progression in industry more streamlined and to try to make all aspects of industry as valid a way to make money in terms of ISK based on effort over time are good, but the execution is _not_. It hasn’t been executed yet, so how can you say that? > [@Arrendis](#): > > PI is going to increase in value, yes. In terms of absolute #s, it certainly will. In terms of ‘what can that ISK _buy_ you?’ No, it won’t. Because as prices on one set of components, and thus, final products, rise, prices on the things you get with that final product rise as well. It’s like saying ‘oh, but the price of oil will go up, that’s good because I’m invested in BP!’ without stopping to consider what the increase in transportation costs does to food prices, etc etc, and how the net effect is really just to make the _money_ have _less_ value. This isn’t what I’m talking about though. I’m talking about diversification and increasing points of entry. More things will have value on the market. This means more opportunities, especially for newbies (PI doesn’t particularly have a high point of entry). > [@Arrendis](#): > > _This_ change violates that principle. I don’t think it’s wrong to call CCP out on it when they decide to violate a principle that CCP has many times sworn they’d _never_ violate. Well no, not really. There’s lots of things players used to be able to do, but can’t do anymore because of some changes. I think that design philosophy applied to the ability to _fly hulls_. I think I remember it being “if you could fly it before, you can still fly it now” or something. > [@Arrendis](#): > > Secondly, if the intention is to provide a clear progression path and streamline production training for new players, then suddenly locking them off from something they were previously able to do… doesn’t do that. It becomes a bait-and-switch, and it’s not hard to see how that can drive them out of the game. Driving new players out of the game is _bad_, because you know, we _need_ new players. Every game does, and EVE—according to CCP—has relatively terrible retention numbers _already_. I really doubt we’re going to lose many new players because they can’t build battleships. C’mon now. This probably mostly affects established players who use free accounts to buttress their production. > [@Arrendis](#): > > No, it doesn’t. You need to invest more skill training now But it does. Ignoring what I said and repeating yourself isn’t a very effective discussion style. I’m sure as a director in an alliance you’re used to being able to talk over people, but we’re not in your alliance right now, we’re on the forums. Removing Zydrine and Megacyte from frigates does make them simpler to build. Standardizing material inputs simplifies things as well. It’s less sourcing of raw material. It’s less spreadsheets. You can actually build those ships locally now. This is a huge boon for small groups. > [@Arrendis](#): > > ‘I can build all the Punishers I want’… well, good luck getting an actual return on your investment any time this decade. Well if our new recruits are having fun and stick around, I get _more_ than a “return oninvestment”. ISK isn’t the only thing that has value. > [@Arrendis](#): > > You’re saying something that completely sidesteps what I’m saying Tu quoque. > [@Arrendis](#): > > that additional complexity of gameplay needs to provide additional engagement, or it’s just introducing repetitive tedium and _work_, not _play_, which makes people want to engage in the activity less. People who enjoy industry will enjoy having more industry to do. > [@Arrendis](#): > > You are not in _any_ was ‘disconfirming’ my point. You’re not even addressing it. 🤷‍♂️ I don’t find your point particularly salient. You’re tunnel-visioning myopically on the changes to battleships and capitals and completely glossing over the massive changes to sub-BS production. I’ve tried to talk you down and bring you closer to a more “big picture” view but you don’t seem particularly interested at the moment. Maybe when you’ve calmed down. ---
**Author:** ![Flanidia](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/flanidia/32/264223_2.png) [@Flanidia](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Flanidia)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2021, 3:46pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-significant-update-to-industry/302303/288 "2021-03-28T15:46:01Z")
> [@Xuixien](#): > > You’re tunnel-visioning myopically on the changes to battleships and capitals and completely glossing over the massive changes to sub-BS production. Incorrect…sub BS T1 production…and not including faction ships. IOW, a very small percentage of the ships actually flown in game. But nice try at seeing the three drops in the bottom of the glass as half full. ---
**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2021, 4:17pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-significant-update-to-industry/302303/289 "2021-03-28T16:17:55Z")
> [@Aliea\_Konovalev](#): > > Plex came about because they couldn’t keep up with the isk sellers everywhere and wanted a piece of the action. Not exactly. PLEX was an outgrowth of GTCs, which every MMO was selling—usually on cards in computer stores and such. CCP added the ‘you can sell it in-game’ as a way to keep players in the game (since, before the f2p change, there was no option to play without either subscribing or using a GTC. PLEX just let players transfer the GTCs). There _was_ an element of ‘combatting RMT’ in it, but from what people who were with the company at the time have said since _leaving_… it wasn’t ‘let’s get our cut’ so much as ‘Prohibition doesn’t work, let’s try to make it so there’s no RL money to be made in it’. > [@Xuixien](#): > > But it’s not making it worse. It’s simplifying large sectors of industry and creating more points of entry for people, right? No. It’s not creating more points of entry. The people who will want to get into industry would _already_ have wanted to get into industry. Now, in order to be competitive, they’ll need to have more alts running more PI farms in order to get the mats they need for basically anything with a halfway decent profit margin. > [@Xuixien](#): > > A great diversity of inputs (aka, raw materials, PI, etc) will have value now. Right. But that won’t increase the number of people producing them. Nobody is saying ‘Damn, Planetary Interaction is widely known as the _most_ click-bait, do-lots-of-work-just-to-get-started-then-hurry-up-and-wait part of the game. It’s so bad, the CEO had to personally step in to reduce the number of clicks to set up **one** planet from 300 down to about 180. But I’d _totally_ be all over that if only I could make money at it!’ Because people already _can_ make money at PI. This will just increase the number of _varieties_ of PI that make money. But it doesn’t make it any less cancerous or more fun to get involved in _those_ varieties of PI. So the people who were willing to make money doing PI? They were _already making money doing PI_. They’re making fuel blocks—which _do_ make money. They’re making the components for structures. They’re making the things needed for reactions. _They’re already doing it_. The point of entry was _already there_, and it’s _already profitable_. So that doesn’t actually get you any new buy-in, because it doesn’t give you new _options_, it just says ‘oh, hey, look! Now you can get the exact same models of cars in NEW COLORS!’ People who weren’t driving cars at all because have no desire to drive a car? They’re still not driving cars with a new color offering. People who weren’t going to get into PI when there were only 20_1_ or so profitable PI chains? They’re not going to get into PI because now there’s 60 profitable PI chains. > [@Xuixien](#): > > Also, decoupling the value of ships is an immensely beneficial change that allows CCP to tweak the prices of different hulls without affecting other hulls. They can increase the price of Titans by increasing the gas and reactions needed and those won’t have much impacts on the price of frigates. This reduces development debt and that funny problem EVE has where every little thing you change affects 10,000 other things in unpredictable ways. Except it doesn’t decouple, because the input cost isn’t the bottleneck. It’s the time, and the fact that you have to own sov. Frigate mineral needs weren’t impacted _at all_ by supercapital production. Nobody found themselves suddenly unable to build frigates because titan production spiked. What’s more, it’s re-introducing a control mechanism CCP should _intimately_ know **does not work**. Trying to control supercapital proliferation through the expense of construction was the _original_ means they attempted. Titans were supposed to be so expensive to build, they couldn’t imagine more than 3-4 of them ever existing at a time. It doesn’t matter what kind of expense they try to build in, the people who want to build titans will find a way to do it with minimal expense and effort. ‘Minimal’ may mean—as we expect—that a hull that would have cost 30-40b to build in Delve 18 months ago will cost 300b immediately after these changes go in… but again, they’re planning ‘capital mining changes’, so I expect once those changes get announced, that 300b price point will start plummeting. > [@Xuixien](#): > > If it’s easier for new players to build things - in particularly the things they can fly - how does it hurt NPR? I mean a newbie with a Venture and testes larger than acorns can jump into LowSec, mine some Jaspet, jump back to HiSec, mine some basic ores, and build all the Rifters he wants. How is that driving newbies away from the game? First, that assumes the newbies are looking to build what they fly. Which even your own example then throws onto the trash heap, with the newbie flying a venture to build rifters. Second, because it builds in a visible ‘your skills end HERE’ limit on progression. The newbie basically has a ‘you can do this until you hit X and then your progression stops’—and the point at which it stops, let’s remember, is _before_ the point where they can’t fly things. Alphas can fly battleships. They won’t be able to build them. That progression wall, where ‘I want to do industry’ is visibly hindered _before_ ‘I want to run missions’ or ‘I want to do PvP’, etc, disincentivizes people who want to do industry. > [@Xuixien](#): > > It hasn’t been executed yet, so how can you say that? The same way we said it on all of the other examples I listed: by seeing what CCP’s saying they’re doing, and understanding how that plays out in actual gameplay experience, because we’ve been doing this, playing the game, getting into the details on every aspect of it we can, for a long, long time. > [@Xuixien](#): > > This isn’t what I’m talking about though. I’m talking about diversification and increasing points of entry. More things will have value on the market. This means more opportunities, especially for newbies But again, it won’t. See above. > [@Xuixien](#): > > Well no, not really. There’s lots of things players used to be able to do, but can’t do anymore because of some changes. Those are things where the activity itself was hindered or removed from the game, not ‘you can still do it, but now you have to buy another 75 skill injectors to do it! Give us $$ for those 75 extractors, lol’. > [@Xuixien](#): > > This probably mostly affects established players who use free accounts to buttress their production. I doubt it. Most of the people running multibox industry setups do it on omega accounts because those accounts are also SP-training. > [@Xuixien](#): > > But it does. Standardization is not simplification, no. Standardization can _bring_ simplification, but the two are not synonymous, and in this case, what you’re actually looking for is homogenization—and it’s homogenization that requires more skills. If you were the guy who wanted to mine his own ore and build ships of X race before, you needed to be able to mine and refine a subset of the ores you currently need. If you didn’t want to do the mining, you still knew which compressed ores you needed to get the specific minerals you need, and not the ones you don’t. Each of those ores has its own refining skill to maximize yield. Now, you no longer only need some of those refining skills. You need them all. That’s standardization, but not simplification. > [@Xuixien](#): > > I’m sure as a director in an alliance you’re used to being able to talk over people Anyone in corporate or alliance leadership who does that should be shoved out an airlock. 90% of the job is listening, and understanding the members’ concerns. The authoritarian ‘we don’t care what you think raaaar!’ just gets people voting with their feet, and then you don’t _have_ an alliance anymore. That said, that doesn’t mean listening precludes being able to say ‘no, you’re wrong’. > [@Xuixien](#): > > People who enjoy industry will enjoy having more industry to do. This would be true _if there was more engaging gameplay coming from this_. Having more options to achieve the same goal would be good. Having more screws to turn _exactly the same way_ is not. Which seems to be the point you’re missing: all this does is give people more screws they _have_ to turn in exactly the same way, not more options they can choose—or _not_ choose—to take advantage of. > [@Xuixien](#): > > You’re tunnel-visioning myopically on the changes to battleships and capitals and completely glossing over the massive changes to sub-BS production. I’m really not. I’m looking at the patterns being established, and the additional requirements being placed on characters and players. I’d say you’re the one being especially myopic, as you’re looking at ‘immediate, short-term, first 3 steps of the progression’ issues, and _not_ looking at ‘what do actual industrialists, not just dabblers who got involved as a recruiting tool, look down the road to be able to do?’ That’s the same mistake CCP loves to make: they don’t seem to understand that EVE players want to be able to make long-term plans for how they intend to do things. EVE attracts people—especially in industry—who like to be able to establish a framework of activity that they can then rely on for more than a few months. So if you’re looking at how this impacts industrialists, you need to be looking at ‘what will those players be looking to spend their time on a year after they get into industry? Two years? Are you putting visible measures in place that—no matter how well you think those measures are minor speedbumps, or how _right_ you might even be about that— **look** like absolute roadblocks to the guy who’s trying to lay out an extensive roadmap for where he wants to get to?’ And that’s what this does. * * * 1. Numbers pulled out of thin air for example purposes only. It doesn’t matter what the actual number is, only that there _is_ a number that currently exists, and it’s not 0. ---
**Author:** ![Aliea\_Konovalev](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/aliea_konovalev/32/250634_2.png) [@Aliea\_Konovalev](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Aliea_Konovalev)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2021, 4:23pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-significant-update-to-industry/302303/290 "2021-03-28T16:23:35Z")
You don’t really think anyone else is going to read all of that do you? ---
**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2021, 4:34pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-significant-update-to-industry/302303/291 "2021-03-28T16:34:53Z")
If Slow Mode is there ‘to encourage thorough, thoughtful discussion’, then it’s not an issue of what I think, it’s an issue of what CCP thinks while they limit me to 1 post every 15 minutes and the inability to edit posts. I can’t help it if they won’t allow separate points to be broken out into separate posts that can be individually addressed and assessed without making even a simple direct discussion require 4 hours for a single exchange. I mean, hell, posting the initial 6 questions in the other thread took 2 hours, because they want people to vote on the questions. And we all know that if CCP sees upvoted question posts they don’t like, they’ll hook onto _any_ kind of ‘we didn’t know which question was being upvoted’ they can to ignore them. Btw, @Xuixien, I realize that my fingers overran my brain at one bit, and re: ‘decoupling’, I wound up leaving off the fact that the mineral impacts were _never_ part of ‘that funny problem EVE has’, because the mineral impacts were 100% predicrable, and predicted, even if somehow, CCP didn’t see it coming. The bottleneck, again, isn’t the minerals—if it were, there wouldn’t have been massive stockpiles of minerals built up that CCP needed over a year of scarcity to _begin_ to draw down. The bottleneck is man-hours. It’s simply ‘how much time is Player A willing to do X?’. If doing X becomes more onerous without commensurate increase in dopamine release, that number goes down. ---
**Author:** ![Xuixien](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/xuixien/32/416896_2.png) [@Xuixien](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Xuixien)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2021, 5:01pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-significant-update-to-industry/302303/292 "2021-03-28T17:01:08Z")
> [@Flanidia](#): > > Incorrect…sub BS T1 production Not… really? This change is specific to T1 production. Unless I missed something (possible), the context of this discussion has been T1 production. > [@Flanidia](#): > > faction ships We can talk about those if you’d like. > [@Flanidia](#): > > IOW, a very small percentage of the ships actually flown in game I’d like to see the stats on that. > [@Arrendis](#): > > No. It’s not creating more points of entry. But it is, right? Because there’s more stuff needed for production. Production requirements have diversified which creates more niches for players to occupy. There’s a wider array of profitable ventures for players. > [@Arrendis](#): > > The people who will want to get into industry would _already_ have wanted to get into industry. Yes, and many people have wanted to, but haven’t actually done it, because of barriers of entry. Which are now lower. You’ll probably say something about “profit margins” now, but that’s not particularly relevant: profit margins are not a barrier to industry. Industry is building. Profit is selling. People don’t always build for profit and no one is entitled to profit. > [@Arrendis](#): > > Now, in order to be competitive, they’ll need to have more alts running more PI farms in order to get the mats they need for basically anything with a halfway decent profit margin. So, planets I mine myself are free? > [@Arrendis](#): > > This will just increase the number of _varieties_ of PI that make money. Exactly. Which means it increases the varieties of planets that make money. Which means more systems are viable. Instead of “does the system have XYZ planet” it’ll be more “the system has planets, we’re good to go.” > [@Arrendis](#): > > But it doesn’t make it any less cancerous or more fun to get involved in _those_ varieties of PI. Hm, well this boils down to play preference really. I love setting PI up. > [@Arrendis](#): > > _They’re already doing it_. The point of entry was _already there_, and it’s _already profitable_. So that doesn’t actually get you any new buy-in, because it doesn’t give you new _options_, it just says ‘oh, hey, look! Now you can get the exact same models of cars in NEW COLORS!’ This actually isn’t a cogent people. You’re basically spinning in circles here: “There were already people doing things! The people already doing things are already doing them!” Bro, what? Saying “there were already points of entry” also isn’t a logical refutation to the proposition that now there will be _more_ points of entry. > [@Arrendis](#): > > Except it doesn’t decouple, because the input cost isn’t the bottleneck. Except it does, right? Before, a Rifter and an Avatar required all the same inputs: asteroid minerals. You could measure the cost of an Avatar in Rifters. Now you can’t, because the Avatar requires other things that the Rifter doesn’t need, right? So they’re decoupled. > [@Arrendis](#): > > It’s the time, and the fact that you have to own sov. This is hairsplitting over a rather minor point. You don’t need SOV to build battleships, dreadnaughts, or carriers. > [@Arrendis](#): > > What’s more, it’s re-introducing a control mechanism CCP should _intimately_ know **does not work**. Trying to control supercapital proliferation through the expense of construction was the _original_ means they attempted. Titans were supposed to be so expensive to build, they couldn’t imagine more than 3-4 of them ever existing at a time. > > It doesn’t matter what kind of expense they try to build in, the people who want to build titans will find a way to do it with minimal expense and effort. ‘Minimal’ may mean—as we expect—that a hull that would have cost 30-40b to build in Delve 18 months ago will cost 300b immediately after these changes go in… but again, they’re planning ‘capital mining changes’, so I expect once those changes get announced, that 300b price point will start plummeting. Perhaps, but I’m also not talking about that at all. > [@Arrendis](#): > > First, that assumes the newbies are looking to build what they fly. No, it actually doesn’t. > [@Arrendis](#): > > Which even your own example then throws onto the trash heap, with the newbie flying a venture to build rifters. ??? > [@Arrendis](#): > > Second, because it builds in a visible ‘your skills end HERE’ limit on progression. The newbie basically has a ‘you can do this until you hit X and then your progression stops’ > [@Arrendis](#): > > Alphas Feels like a shifting goalpost TBH. Not all newbies are alphas and not all alphas are newbies. They’re decoupled, right? What you’re doing here is called “conflation”. > [@Arrendis](#): > > But again, it won’t. See above. I did. You haven’t actually refuted any of my points, right? > [@Arrendis](#): > > Those are things where the activity itself was hindered or removed from the game I’m glad you were finally able to concede a point. I’m proud of you. > [@Arrendis](#): > > Most of the people running multibox industry setups do it on omega accounts because those accounts are also SP-training. Perhaps. > [@Arrendis](#): > > Standardization can _bring_ simplification And this is one of those cases, right? Because instead of having to keep track of the 10 specific material profiles for 10 different frigates, you only need to keep track of 1 material profile. That’s… simpler. > [@Arrendis](#): > > what you’re actually looking for is homogenization—and it’s homogenization that requires more skills. What additional skills are being introduced for the production of T1 sub-BS ships? > [@Arrendis](#): > > That said, that doesn’t mean listening precludes being able to say ‘no, you’re wrong’. Which you can’t do when you gloss over 80% of what someone has said to you. Jussayin’. > [@Arrendis](#): > > This would be true _if there was more engaging gameplay coming from this_. This is opinion again. I find all of this very engaging. > [@Arrendis](#): > > Having more screws to turn _exactly the same way_ is not. Which seems to be the point you’re missing: all this does is give people more screws they _have_ to turn in exactly the same way, not more options they can choose—or _not_ choose—to take advantage of. The point you’re missing is that this only applies to battleships and above. This is what I’ve been trying to explain to you, right? For sub-BS things just got a lot simpler and more streamlined. For battleships and above, yes it’s more complicated for the final point of production - ie, getting the dude sitting at his computer who right clicks and selects “use blueprint” on the hull to the point of being able to do that - but as I explained already, it diversifies the activity of building big ships. This (may) break some monopolies - unless those players want to increase their overhead and add more accounts/more PI empires/more gas harvesting alts, whatever. And they’re free to do so. Or not do so, and just buy from players who are going out and doing those things. 🤷‍♂️ > [@Arrendis](#): > > I’m really not. But you are, right? For example, you’re making very broad, blanket statements. I’m explaining things in nuance - for X, things got more complicated. For Y, things got simpler. And you’re sitting there ranting “THINGS ARE HARDER NOW.” But they’re not. For X they’re harder. For Y they’re simpler. You can’t just say “THINGS ARE HARDER”, because that’s an inaccurate statement. The reality is more nuanced and complicated than that. > [@Arrendis](#): > > EVE attracts people—especially in industry—who like to be able to establish a framework of activity that they can then rely on for more than a few months. Oh. Well that’s not EVE anymore. We’re in the shakeup phase. What did they call it? **ChAoS** era? Or is that over now? I stopped keeping tracking TBH. ---
**Author:** ![Vela\_Lightbringer\_Ho](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/vela_lightbringer_ho/32/255621_2.png) [@Vela\_Lightbringer\_Ho](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Vela_Lightbringer_Ho)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2021, 5:02pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-significant-update-to-industry/302303/293 "2021-03-28T17:02:16Z")
> [@Xuixien](#): > > But it does, right? Because the production of frigates to battlecruisers just got a hell of a lot simpler. They all have the same required inputs and those inputs were streamlined and simplified. I can build all the Punishers I want from HiSec and LowSec ores. These changes only marginally reduced the complexity for those, to the cost of completely overturning a large swathe of the economy by changing ratios. And by “marginally”, I mean, it barely registers. The only people who benefit from this change are people who never want to go on a market ever and mine only in high sec, and only if they build frigates and destroyers, since cruisers and battlecruisers also require ores from outside highsec. Or people who can’t spend the literal 10min needed to make a spreadsheet to get a shopping list from your current pool of materials and the bill of materials for your next build. tldr : “simpler” is marginal, introduces host of bad and uncertainty. Added complexity to everything else. Justifications go to garbage can. ---
**Author:** ![Flanidia](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/flanidia/32/264223_2.png) [@Flanidia](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Flanidia)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2021, 5:03pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-significant-update-to-industry/302303/294 "2021-03-28T17:03:36Z")
> [@Xuixien](#): > > Unless I missed something (possible), the context of this discussion has been T1 production. Your desired context is not the context of the discussion. > [@Xuixien](#): > > We can talk about those if you’d like. You can duck the discussion if you’d like. > [@Xuixien](#): > > I’d like to see the stats on that. Please feel free to provide them. Non faction t1 BC and down is not a common ship to fly after the first few months of playing this game. [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-significant-update-to-industry/302303.md?page=13) [Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/a-significant-update-to-industry/302303.md?page=15)