i actually remember that roam! <3
1 Like
I notice Oz thinks highly of you. Do you have any opinions about the large gap between isk faucets and sinks, and would you consider introducing higher contract fees, perhaps moving them to a %, perhaps still less than sales tax.
The current situation tends to guarantee that smaller, less well-off industrialists and traders end up paying more tax/fees than large corporations. Which reminds me of something.
Also interested in other areas of market and industry where you have ideas for improvement.
1 Like
I absolutely do! I do a monthly show with him and a few others about the MER where we bring it up often. We also have asked Fenris to be a little conservative with extra sinks for events (we don’t want the events to be unprofitable, but we want the profits to come in the form of items and not pure isk).
The nature of inflation in EVE means that it isn’t super easy to reduce faucets that are already in the game, but we do need new content to not increase faucets in order to seem more worth doing.
I am in favour of increasing the tax on the global plex market to a flat rate (it currently is 0.5% - not counting sales tax) for experienced players.
I think contracts that ask for isk (public AND private) should be taxed at a small rate with no cap. This would not apply to people just handing a ship to a friend or an alt, in-station trades, etc. The fee is mostly for convenience.
I would want the industry index to update quicker, to prevent people from installing a ton of jobs all at once and then lock down the structures in system for weeks after to always operate with the lowest indices.
Lastly (and I think this is a real long shot, but it still warrants a discussion) I think that a select few industry items should have lower taxes on the market, including raw minerals, ore, moon goo, reactions, commodities and PI, to let people be able to do industry more effectively without total vertical integration.
I have many ideas of how to improve the EVE economy, but as always, the role of the CSM isn’t to be a game designer, so it will mostly take the form of bringing it up to Fenris, start the discussions, tell them what our worries are and what we wish the outcome to be, and work with them to make it as good as possible.
2 Likes
The Oz show CSM edition
As somebody who does a fair amount of industry, I find myself constantly having to contract and deliver cans to different characters. The default answer seems to be to form your own industry corporation so you can have shared hangers. Unfortunately though, if you play with a group of others in an alliance, you end up having to have different characters in different corporations, so the indy corp then fails to be useful. Do you have any thoughts on how this could be improved?
My initial ideas were to either allow for a group shared hanger, which would be the same cost as renting an office in that station, with the hanger being only accessible by characters on the same account, and any accounts that you link to each other though the account website. The second, and much more risky and open to abuse and mistakes and theft, would be to allow somebody to rent an ACL hanger in a station/structure, and then that hanger has ACL access. The third option, and one I have seen be very useful in a now mostly defunct game called Dual Universe, is to allow the creation of a “Collective” or “Union” organisation. Each player can be part of one of these in addition to their actual Corp. A collective or union can rent a hanger in a station or structure, and you have the usual join/kick/permissions as a corp, but in reduced scope.
Also, I am of the opinion that structures are massively underpowered in being able to defend themselves. Yes, if a big fleet arrives the structure is doomed without a response fleet, but when it’s a handful of ships, the huge space station seems to be unable to scratch the ships. I would advocate for more weapons on structures (lasers, hybrid, and autocannons) as well as a default increase in the output damage by 5x to 10x the current anaemic effort. Do you have any thoughts about structures being able to defend themselves?
Thanks for looking at my questions.
1 Like
Having met Dujek during Fanfest and listening to the different interviews I fully endorse him for CSM. He has proven to be levelheaded and on top of that he is knowledgable and cares for a lot of different aspects in the game. He makes for a great addition to the CSM!
1 Like
Thank you so much! See you in the next tournament too!
I often run into the same issues - we do after all share a decent amount of gameplay with stocking, hauling, trading and so on. I also do not have the opportunity to gather my characters into a single corp.
This is by far the most common request of the CSM by any metric. I am pretty sure each one of them has been suggested and brought to Fenris by now, and we are primarily waiting for a clever technical solution to get a go-ahead (in addition to it actually being prioritized). I do quite enjoy the idea of being voluntarily able to designate other accounts as your alts, which would help in many other situations too, including applying to corps and achievements.
I am torn about automatic defenses. I do particularly think that structures are weak against small ship and too good against large ships. In a similar discussion recently we were talking about the problem posed by giving structures too good defenses when people are fighting on grid with them. I think I would support having good anti-subcap defenses (geared towards the smaller ships in the range) if they were unable to come online until after the structure has sustained significant damage. I think this would require a larger community discussion overall.
The whole system of SCI is terrible, especially for wormhole groups who only have a single system to use for all their jobs, long and short, spread among a dozen or more industrialists that you can never completely synchronize…
The old system of limited production lanes was so much better… needed more industrial capacity, anchor a new structure and accept that you have to fuel and protect it…
2 Likes
That is a good point, nobody has brought that up in a long time.
I love having a rigged structure in my wormhole and doing 90% of my indy in high sec because the SCI gets out of control.
3 Likes
Yeah, pretty much the same. I have seen small wormhole corps giving up industry simply because after 2 or 3 people running a decent amount of jobs, the hole becomes totally unlucrative for anyone else. You are basically ruining your own groups margins by trying to participate.
Outside WHs you can set up multiple systems for rotation or split your indu activities over an area with clear rules when to start jobs or assign systems to use to small teams that can coordinate easily. Due to the lack/randomness/masslimitations of connections you simply can’t do that in JSpace, even if your group holds multiple holes.
SCI should be completely disabled for wormholes and all Upwell Structures should have limited job slots (based on their size and fit).
1 Like
I think the first point makes more sense and might be an easier ask than the second.
With that I agree. FC is way too stubborn to admit (or even realize) how bad basic Upwell Design is 
But that would be a whole different topic ^^
However, we could create another problem with that: Currently big Nullblocks leave WHs more or less alone, for how inconvenient they are, how mass- and time-limitations in the connections work against their concept of big fleets using to protect their assets. And at the same time, they don’t offer an industrial benefit they couldn’t have in their own null-space.
If the SCI is removed, it can be that large-scale production in a WH suddenly becomes much more lucrative than doing it in an Nullsec system. Which can lead to the large blocks forcefully claiming wormholes to set up production centers. Which would probably not be in the best interest of JSpace.
2 Likes
The FC chat with Pando did talk quite a bit about this
I do not do a lot of industry, but I do a lot of hauling and logistics for industrialists. I think the rates they would have to pay me (or the time they’d have to spend) to move 7m m3 a week out of a wormhole might bankrupt them. I think the mass limitations and the scanning and such might be a natural limiter of this.
1 Like
Hi,
are you sure about the gunnery skill split? Let’s say a cute newbee like me has already all gunnery skills, every such patch recently came with more skills with no consideration about existing abilities of the characters. Having to train a logistics frigate after flying logi for a decade was kinda weird, I prefer not to do the same training twice, do you think FC is up to changing this behaviour?
1 Like
The way these splits have been done previously hasn’t resulted in people having to train double up. All the support skills stay the same, motion prediction as a prerequisite for short range guns, sharpshooter as a prerequisite for long range guns. The spec skills are already different for the different gun types, just as they are for missiles. When carrier skills went from 1 skill to racial, people got all the racial carrier skills equal to the carrier skill they used to have, as an example.
1 Like