It really is, and I don’t know why they’re so averse to the idea of making the people who can afford to pay more… pay more. We have too much money. The reason we have too many assets is we can afford 'em. The reason things cost s’damned much is because the ISK supply is flush.
If you want to curb inflation, suck out the money. Wardecs are probably the easiest way to directly suck money out of the game.
The drill owner chooses the time and place the belt appears. If they don’t have the manpower to vacuum all the ore, then what’s the likelihood they have the manpower to declare ( and win ) a war?
Have you seen the size of those rocks?
I dunno about HS, but out here, you’re looking at 100 or so rocks with 360,000m3 each. And HS doesn’t do rorqual-compression.
So how many people do you need to have to suck down 36,000,000m3 of ore fast enough that nobody else can get to it?
I’d be willing to bet the number is larger than the number of people you need to have sitting in the middle of the belt w/long points and sniper domis to keep people away.
Edit: As I think about it, that might be high. Call it 50-some rocks. So 18,000,000
Hello,
Neither is mercoxit. Good luck finding it in high security space.
No mercoxit, and no gas clouds in high security space.
There used to be a reason to go out to 0.0 and wormholes once upon a time.
Mercoxit is the same as the above in that respect - it doesn’t have to be made available for mining, it’s just there ready to be mined.
Just plain wrong - see
Uniwiki- gas cloud nebulae
You took the long view on this one…
moobelts have 20.000m³/h runtime volume.
a typical 7d moonbelt have 3,36m m³ in 36k to 114k roids and a lot of them have not verry usefull ore or moongoo in it no one mines, that lowers the average usefull volume mostly 2/3 (or less)
you can easy switch the blow up time 2h early or later if you have some bad guy “stealing” your ore and we are talking about 2 freighters per week per moon
bring 10 active miners with boost and haulers in and you clear that moon in the 2h timespan you moved the belt. i am pretty sure your large thief fleet is doing something else in this time and with that 10 active miners you suck every roid a “bad guy” want to “steal”
sure if you change that 10 active miners to 3 afk orcas the timespan the yield and all change te the benefit of that bad guy with the active fleet… i call this balanced for both sites
as i sayed before you are talking in a Highsec Wardec thread about HIGHSEC Wars and related mining stuff without beeing there, living there, acting there or be otherwise involved expect from someone telled you about that big 50man thief fleets raiding someones moons and now want suspect flag and protecttion from ccp for “their” roids
its not fun anymore
Holy hell, that thread…
It’s like someone made a copy-paste of the discussions we had in 2018. Exactly. The Same. Arguments.
This kinda shock me, things change but they actually stay very much the sames.
It is a superb thread and all credit to Daichi on that.
I have started to look at Upwell structures and I had a look at the Athanor with a massively expensive T2 rig and a reprocessing facility and I got to 60.5472% refining efficiency, however having standings of 9.99 with a NPC corp I have 65.8%. So what is the point exactly? 
I thought I was being inefficient, but in fact I am not, yay!!!
Of course I know there is more to structures and indy than that, but I was expecting to get slightly better on basic refine…
So make wars free? 
its not possible to have lower ref yield in an Athanor as in a npc station
Does the simulator thing work? I am going to have to hunt for a Athanor to test it out on now. 65.8% is what I get in an NPC factory station with 9.99 standings.
Found an Athanor next door, no idea of the fit so will do a scan on it however it had 0.5 reported as a refine and my slightly less than perfect refiner was reported as 68.5% which is worth it. Phew… And the simulated value is 58.2624% on that fit. Hmmmmm.
This is not off topic because making a decision to use a structure is important, if this is the case then it does cut down the number of people who will bother putting up a structure for basic activities. I am looking at this in the context of when people will start to take the risk of having a structure. I am relieved that my base assumption that having a structure was just about worth it in hisec.
I just looked at an Astrahus with a clone bay which costs 136m per month in fuel, of course I was going to use that for a war dec corp, but I might as well get some other use out of it.
Simulated probably doesn’t include specific ore skills as it doesn’t know what you intend to refine.
It’s sad, but the same people that have been abusing these loopholes are still doing it, and are openly bragging that they know more loopholes that they can use after the fixes…
Report them for using a known exploit, keep reporting them.
Well, it’s a loophole, not an exploit.
A lot of comments have been made since my last reply, so I apologize if someone has mentioned this already. I mentioned my concerns on the adverse effects that the neutral assistance changes could have on certain Incursion communities. I had brainstormed a bit afterwards, and found that there could be other adverse effects.
If my understanding is correct, the following would be possible after April:
Now, in this hypothetical situation, no war-related conflicts actually occurred, but adverse effects happened because some war happened to exist. So, if this change to neutral assistance is meant primarily for war interactions, I would recommend that the rules be changed to the following (changes in bold):
If a neutral character applies a remote assistance module (such as a remote repairer) to another character they will receive a criminal flag if their target meets all of the following conditions:
- does not share a corp/alliance (or FW side if the war in question is the FW war) with the assistor
- is engaged in PVP, in highsec, with a capsuleer in a corp/alliance/militia that the pilot’s corp/alliance/militia is at war with (Capsuleer War Combat Timer)
Being able to check each group’s war targets to see if they share a common enemy and can help each other would be more ideal, but I can understand that could lead to a performance strain having to continually check who can and can’t shoot who. I think that the change above offers a decent compromise, where it only affects capsuleers who are actually involved in a war-related conflict, and not just any sort of PvP in hi-sec with a person who happens to be in an unrelated war.
Now, this would require the addition of another timer into the game, which I do not know how challenging it would be on server performance. The Capsuleer War Combat Timer could either supercede the Capsuleer Logoff Timer when a war-related conflict occurs, or it could be its own timer with a separate, possibly shorter duration. It’s icon could be a red circle with a star in the middle if it’s a separate timer, or a star with an exclamation mark inside if it supercedes the Capsuleer Logoff Timer.
Thanks to the CCP & CSM members who are digging through all these posts. I hope that the suggestions made in this post could be considered. I think it would minimize the adverse effects that could come from these changes, and make the system better as a result.
Thank you once again for reading.
What if your alt corp is the enemy and your logi is in the alt corp…and your alt corp isn’t at war with your main corps war targets. Now instead of suspect flashy logi anyone can shoot (neut logi was never a problem because as soon as it did anything it went suspect…and cap chaining cause whole logi wings to go suspect) now its logi no one can shoot but that can rep with impunity. Congratulations crying about something that made little to no difference has caused more of an imbalance than ever…GG
Then as soon as your alt-corp logi reps someone in your main corp, they explode. That’s not ‘rep with impunity’.
So if I rep any war target or any other remote assistance it gives crim flag? Cause the way it sounded was that it did not.