Welcome to Jester's Trek.
I'm your host, Jester. I've been an EVE Online player for about six years. One of my four mains is Ripard Teg, pictured at left. Sadly, I've succumbed to "bittervet" disease, but I'm wandering the New Eden landscape (and from time to time, the MMO landscape) in search of a cure.
You can follow along, if you want...

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

No problem

Warning: the following post could be based around a massive troll.

The discussion about technetium over the last few weeks raises an interesting question: how far would a sov-holding alliance get if they didn't have tech moon income?

There's a funny thing about being a recognized blogger.  People want to tell you stuff.  About three times a year, someone sends me the financial spreadsheets (or links to them, or screen-caps of them) for big, sov-holding, moon-holding alliances.  Make no mistake: running a big alliance's financials is a business.  I've been in the business world for 25 years now, more or less, and I can tell you that there are multimillion dollar companies that run their finances with fewer spreadsheets, graphs, tables, and personnel then some big null-sec alliances.  And the more transparent an alliance's finances are, the more likely it is that someone will feel the need to send me some of this stuff.

I don't mind.  It's interesting stuff!  I immediately have to tell the people involved that I can't use the data right away.  "Never single source anything," is a hard and fast rule of both spy-craft and source-based writing.  The easiest way to lose a source is to use that source's data if it hasn't been corroborated with other sources.  "This is really interesting!" I say, "I can't use it now, but I'll use it eventually.  I don't want you to be identified as the source."  I explain this, and virtually everyone involved understands.  If they don't understand, I delete what they send me.

Hint for bloggers and prospective bloggers: if someone is desperate for you to use what they send you right now, you're being trolled.

I've fallen victim or almost fallen victim to it a time or two.  Hell, I might be falling for it right now.  But still, the information I've gathered in this regard over the last couple of years is from multiple sources, internally consistent, and passes all the sniff tests I've been able to subject it to.  So let's talk about it.  I'll change the numbers very slightly to protect the guilty.  And let's keep in mind that I'm talking about sov-holding, moon-holding alliances... CFC alliances, to be perfectly frank.

Let's say that in a particular month in 2011, Goonswarm Federation brought in about 175 billion ISK from "moon-goo sales."  It wasn't that, but it was close to that.  If I were to compare that to their operating expenses, what do you think that would pay for?
  • Their ship reimbursement fund.
  • Their ship-building and outfitting subsidies.
  • Their sovereignty costs.
  • The fuel for all of their towers.
  • Their super-cap building program.
  • All of the above.
Think about it for a second.  Then read on.

The answer is the first, second, and third: moon-goo paid for their full reimbursement fund for both sub-caps and capital ships, their outfitting fund and subsidies for new super-caps and capital ships, and their sovereignty costs.  The first two were about 140 billion.  The third was about 25 billion.  There was even enough left over to pay about a quarter of their POS fuel bill, too.

And it turns out that if I make this comparison for other months in 2011 or 2012, or for other CFC-member finance spreadsheets I've been shown over the last couple of years, that's very consistent.  TEST has one quarter the tech moons of Goons but they have other moons to make up the difference.  Their moon income combined pays for their ship reimbursements, subsidies, and sov costs, plus a small fraction of their POS fuel bill.  The smaller CFC alliances are a half or a quarter of these budgets, but the proportions remain the same.  Moon income pays for reimbursement, ship subsidies, and sovereignty.  Minor income sources pay for the rest.

Put another way, if moon income disappeared tomorrow, the budgets for CFC sovereignty and PvP would also disappear.  And of course without the sovereignty or the PvP budget, the need for or the ability to do the rest -- fuel POSes, build super-caps, et cetera -- would also disappear.

Put yet a third way, members of these alliances don't have to do any active PvE to pay these alliance-level costs because all of that is paid for by passive income.

In the immortal words of Jubal Early, that seem right to you?

Nope, no problem with tech at all.

63 comments:

  1. My second favorite firefly char! Great reference!

    ReplyDelete
  2. TEST is probably another matter with their 3 regions rapidly growing in cost, but for most of the CFC, sovereignty would be in no immediate danger even if all held moons vanished overnight. Ratting+PI taxes cover sov and fuel. Reimbursement is another matter, of course, and a loss of that would almost certainly lead to decreased combat capability, and a contraction of space held.

    That said, I don't think you'll find many people who will say that t2 production should be kept as-is, even in the CFC. One resource (tech) being such a huge bottleneck is obviously poor design. One thing I've seen Zagdul, among others, suggest is regional moons as the chokes for racial components. Somebody who holds the North could control Caldari+missile prices, for example, and so on. That Would certainly be interesting, but maybe it would put too much pressure on CCP to properly balance the game between the races. Food for thought, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If CVA et al. get to control the price of Amarr technology I quit :)

      Delete
    2. if CVA got to control ANY lucrative null-sec space they'll quickly be history.

      which is an interesting concept if applied to the original holders of the tech moons up north. CCP have plainly stated they want lots of little alliances and guess which was the biggest alliance back when they nerfed dyspro+?

      Delete
  3. there's a big issue on your blog post : you don't offer another option.
    you say it's not normal, but don't say what would be the solution.

    it would be pretty interesting to compare that

    with how a big blow without nice moons works.
    i suppose it's the case of AAA and solar

    don't you have any infos of these ? don't tell me only goons are good with nice numbers xD

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There obviously IS another option, because not every alliance HAS moons.

      Delete
    2. The other option is space feudalism. Renting out your fiefdoms to space serfs for their meager ratting wages.

      I'm not sure how you view it, but I don't see this as a proper way to generate income for an alliance. I'd love to see some way for an alliance to generate income for itself that doesn't rely on medieval slavery.

      *Not to say I don't think space serfdom isn't terribly interesting. Rather I'd like alternate means for alliances to generate income.

      Delete
    3. PVE until your bored then a) buy a plex b) play world of tanks.

      Delete
    4. Its called Renters, honestly.

      Delete
  4. Nerf high sec incursions!!! Crap, no I meant nerd tech moons!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. What is interesting Jester is that before the Escalation NERF Goons were one of the few NULL SEC Alliances that were running PvE Incursions with measurable success... were these numbers pre-Escalation & did they include PvE taxes?
    ~DarthNefarius

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TEST made up a majority of the Incursion group with one goon multiboxing making up for nearly all of their presence. Even then there were only about two squads worth of people ever running incursions at a given time.

      Delete
  6. Take it from someone who has lived in the Drone Regions for 2+ years.

    There's other options

    ReplyDelete
  7. Had an urge to theorycraft based on these numbers and your reference to CCP wanting null to be a whole set of warring fiefdoms.

    Perhaps the solution is to change sov costs so they start spirally up exponentially (like wardec support costs) after 5-10 systems. The idea being that you'll end up with all these small forces eyeing the expensive moon in their area, which WOULD be a combat driver. But even if they capture the moon, spiralling sov costs mean the size of that group's power/reach has a hard cap on it.

    Of course, it's easy enough to turn alliances from using the ingame 'alliance' concept to just large standings lists, which would let one meta-entity own multiple regions like now. I wonder if there's a way to get around this...?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Charge isk per standing after X number, increasing fees by 1.Y for each addition past X. What those numbers would be is a balancing issue for those with better data (CCP).

      Give some serious cost to large confederations. If a meta alliance can keep all of their pilots from shooting each other without standing, they deserve what ever space they can control.

      Delete
    2. The problem would still exist even with high sov costs. Big alliances hold tech moons without sov...look at Pandemic Legion and NPC null and lowsec moons for examples.

      A small alliance that attacks and tries to capture a tech moon in a sov-less system is a stupid and soon dead alliance. A small alliance that claims sov in a region "claimed" by a big alliance is a stupid and soon dead alliance. I was once in such a small alliance that was allowed to claim sov in systems that had several PL tech moons. They jumped freighters in to collect goo and left. We were never under any delusion that holding sov meant we could ever wrest a tech moon from them.

      Delete
  8. If not Tech, then how are all the super caps being built? Are some people just that space-rich?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When they don't have to pay for your PvP losses; all that money they DO make through 'regular*' means can be dedicated to... larger projects. That and it isn't every day (or even week) an individual looses a scap; and there are a lot of individuals.

      Where would you otherwise sink all that ISK that you have but aren't sinking into PvP because you get reimbursed? Non-reimbursed Solo PvP? In my EVE? More likely a shiny big(er) ship that you can use to blob other big ships with once in a blue moon.

      *Whatever they do in null, as well as the inevitable couple of hi-sec alts income.

      Delete
    2. Yes. From what I've seen, the majority of supercaps were built or bought by individuals. As relatively few of them get destroyed, a big alliance is able to help with replacements or outright provide a new one in the event of loss. @raiden55, the alternative is well known to the former drone region and southern alliances with no tech moons. They have equally big wallets as the tech alliances, but Jester points out that tech income is mostly passive while other income is mostly active. Gevlon, an industrialist, points out how he individually makes about 10% of the income of a 2000+ member tech alliance. Yet Gevlon's income still requires real work and effort. Tech income, once acquired, is mostly passive.

      Incoming troll: hell, a tech moon is just one step up from botting...hehehehe

      Delete
  9. Yes this seems to be right. Their operation costs are covert by the territory they claimed. Space pays for itself, this is good. Individual income of their members should never be the source of wealth for a corp or alliance.

    Though I am totally on your side that not a single resource should be so important for all tech of tech 2. Variety is good.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This spreadsheet has been public for years. No idea how accurate it is:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlIIq5agK7rWdDRnaWwzMVRrYTFCTG1sZEJhTWN1Z1E&authkey=CMng2u0B#gid=5

    ReplyDelete
  11. OMG MY ALLIANCE DOESN'T HAVE MOONS, NERF MOONS FOR EVERYONE!
    That is the general words coming from you right now Jester.

    What you fail to realize is that CFC hasn't magically acquired these moons, or received items from CCP by some shady developer.

    They fought for the moons, should they not then be able to harvest the fruits of their labor?
    The problem is not just techmoons, it is the general problem of the current sov system. You more or less need moons to be able to pay for SRP/SRF, SOV, pos fuels, etc etc.
    Unless you deal with shitty renters and their ratting drama.
    Alot of regions in eve only has a sov holder as bufferzone cause its so shitty that its not even worth considering renting out.

    The problem as it is, is that moons is a top level income, it doesn't come from the grunts that is out shooting rats, or run complexes or what have you.
    Alliances need a top level income to sustain itself.
    If you are a sovholding alliance, you either have moons, or rent out space. (Test is the exception currently, but they are almost broke as it is)
    You can also tax the member corporations based on membercount, but that will barely pay for the sov bills.

    A corporation i know have just started their alliance in the outskirts of the derelik region, they hold a few moons down there for SRP/SRF purposes for their alliance.
    Do you think their ability to do small gang warfare should be impacted by a widespread technerf?

    I have read you dishing out crap towards soundwave in more than one bloggpost. And you just screaming bloody murder about nerfing tech without having another way to keep SRF/SRP/sov bills payed is just well, in lack of another word, retarded.
    I like your blog, and you have alot of thoughts put into the posts. But some are just retarded.
    if i recall the number correctly, goons alone has payed out over 100bill in SRP/SRF in august alone. Maelstroms aren't cheap remember. (I heard it on mumble from one of the SRF dudes)

    When the whole sanctum nerf hit nullsec it dropped the tax income for corporations by 6-8bill per week. (Got this information from a corporation in my alliance) And this hit the general player the most, due to they have to rat more to actually go on the small gang roams that is not covered by the SRF/SRP programs.
    By just keep nerfing everything when its unbalanced is not going to do anyone any favors.

    Is tech unbalanced? yes it is, there is no argument to this.
    Is alchemy a way to even this out? Yes and no. It will help keep the techprices from rising to unhealthy levels.

    Is nullsec in the need for a massive rework? oh a thousand times yes.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somehow, other alliances manage to keep themselves operating without the moons. I'm suggesting that the CFC use the same model as everyone else.

      Moon income more or less automatically gives the CFC a major leg up for any operation against a competing alliance for the reasons in my reply below.

      Delete
    2. "The problem is not just techmoons, it is the general problem of the current sov system. You more or less need moons to be able to pay for SRP/SRF, SOV, pos fuels, etc etc.
      Unless you deal with shitty renters and their ratting drama."

      Reading comprehension, you sir need to learn it.

      Delete
    3. @Hosi - you just don't get it, do you?

      The design goal of the game wasn't to make null sec all nice and safe and stable for a few alliances. The goal was to keep null sec as unstable as possible, to encourage conflicts, and to allow new alliances to continuously challenge the status quo.

      This is also exactly what is *not* happening in null sec today.

      Delete
    4. *shrug* I really don't care what others think as much as how CCP thinks concerns me. Even if they're the most hopeless eve players ever, it's got to be a million to one they accidentally forgot about tech moons. it's like they have all this data we don't have right at their fingertips, yet it just seems like they go "DERP! let's just listen to the whines and nerf whatever! yay! *chest bumps*"

      Delete
    5. @Anon
      I get it just fine, conflict drivers are still needed.
      Techmoons are such a thing, the biggest wars the last 1-2years in nullsec has been because of moons.
      If there is no driver behind the conflict, people won't fight each other.
      Other than small gang warfare that i know Jester is fond of.

      Another issue with the current sovsystem is that it promotes ganging together, cause good luck shooting an ihub or station with 10 guys in subcaps.

      Delete
    6. I disagree with everything you say. Alliance income should come mainly from the bottom up. Alliance members should actively pursuit ingame content as the main means of financing the Alliance. The conflict driver here should be that some areas have simply better, more valuable PVE content.

      Hunters need prey. When there are noone ratting, mining, plexing or escorting in a Tech Alliance's space, noone will go there to hunt them. If everyone only log on to join 1000 man blobfests, because they don't need to make money, you can consider the game dead.

      Delete
    7. Yes. but with the current mechanics of sov warfare.
      The alliance needs top level income.
      Further down the line whenever ccp decides to do the nullsec revamp.

      I hope that they go the route of "from the bottom up"
      But currently, People still rat in sov space belonging to alliances that have tech.
      Check dotlan and see for yourself.

      Delete
  12. Tech is NOT a problem for a single reason: 175B/month is pocket change. No, I'm not starting to cite my own income.

    I rather mention that there was about 5000 members in GSF a year ago. So the Tech income/capita is 35M. Having tech moons saved GSF about HALF AN HOUR null ratting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 175 billion would fund the PvP needs of a lot of alliances for months. It's not pocket change. If it's pocket change, have the CFC send me one month of pocket change and I'll fund a Rote Kapelle ship reimbursement fund with it for the rest of the year.

      Delete
    2. Feeling like Marie Antoinette yet Gevlon?

      Delete
    3. Jester is talking about passive income, and 175B/month in passive income is not pocket change.

      You might make more ISK, but you do it by spending virtually all of your in-game time farming ISK. Mittens doesn't spend his time in mining ops or ratting NPCs....

      Delete
    4. So, what you're saying is that Tech moons provide the equivalent of 2,500 man-hours of effort every month in exchange for minimal effort - less than 250/month, potentially less than 25/month.

      The point isn't whether or not it's a vast mountain of cash, the point is it's 2,500 man-hours that Goons don't have to put in that an equivalent alliance without Tech does. THAT is the Tech problem.

      Delete
  13. I am surprise no one has yet to even speak phrase "anti-trust" when it comes to the control and influence of bloc alliances.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one speaks this because the definitions and consequences of anti-trust, monopolies, collusion, price fixing, embezzlement, shakedowns, blackmail, theft, etc., have no LEGAL meaning or standing in EVE. It's all just part of the game.

      Delete
  14. If null-sec alliance reimbursment programs suffer then the number of ships being blown up will reduce, which will reduce the number of ships purchased, reducing the need to build them. Nerfing null-sec fleets will impact the industrial section of high-sec.

    I am in a large null-sec alliance and while I don't agree with OTEC screwing with the market, it is only allowable due to the mechanics CCP put in the game.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am sure my young, 7-month-old carebear account, will also face some spin-of effects from tech nerf when CCP decides to change tech.
      Eve is a very complex game and it is important to always try to be objective .... otherwise one might be surprised that favoured goals actually turn against yourself.

      Delete
  15. CFC alliances operate differently than some of the other/older nullsec alliances. CFC alliances do not label themselves "pvp alliances", but rather "nullsec alliances". Within a single CFC alliance, you will find pvp'ers, miners, industrialists, and logisticians. The alliances are self sufficient. They produce their own ships, do their own T2 invention. They do not rely on turning other players into serfs. They can mine, build/produce most of their needs. There is a mix of duty (attending strategic ops) mixed with the freedom to do whatever you like. Had a rough day and would rather mine instead of pvp? No problem.

    CFC alliances reject the renter dynamic. Alliances in nullsec should be free to rise or fall on their our capabilities. And if part of the alliance's capabilities includes making friends, being good neighbors, and fighting for profitable moons, why is it the moon's fault?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Part of the reason I brought up this topic is because it makes fighting a CFC alliance much more difficult.

      If you're a renter alliance or an alliance that makes ISK by charging member fees or something, that's time taken away from your PvP players because they have to go rat or do incursions or wormholes or something.

      The CFC alliances don't have that problem.

      Take the simplest example: once a week or so, I jump-clone one of my mains to Empire to handle PvE so I have ISK for PvP. For those 24 hours, that main doesn't have access to 0.0 at all. Therefore, if a CTA gets called, I don't have access to that main. Again, the CFC alliances don't have that problem because their mains don't have to do PvE to afford PvE, or at worst, they can do their PvE in 0.0 (since in addition to having all the moons, they have good ratting space as well).

      Delete
    2. I have a hard time believing that the CFC is 'self-sufficient', but then I really don't know.

      Our alliance (when we have sov to worry about) pays for bills with ratting taxes (10%), wormhole ops, highsec ganking, market trading, mining, and some moons (they're the crappy ones).

      Delete
    3. Your alliance doesn't care about fighting for SOV and paying SOV costs, why should it's pilots benefit from SOV ratting?
      I agree with your argument about it not being equitable financially or pilot-time wise for alliances without tech to fight agaisnt tech-owning ones, but don't understand what this has to do with you having to go pve in empire to fund your pvp, I tought Rote was by choice a small gang, roam focused alliance. This last comment of yours sounds like jealousy tbh ( Yes I know you left the CFC by choice). It's your choice to PvP without SRP, suck it up buttercup, I'm sure it helped you become a better PvPer too.

      I'm in a CFC alliance, and although all pvp in proper doctrine boats under a proper fc is reimbursed thanks to tech, being a one year old player I still have to farm a good amount just to buy stuff like skillbooks, decent ratting ship, and soon capital books, and said capital. At the same time, I don't feel I'm good at PvP at all, simply because I've been in blob fleets before doing any significant small gang pvp( I joined my corp after 2 months in the game), and knowing that my losses will be refunded means the only thing I'm not happy about when I die in blob fleets is that I'm going to miss out on more killmails.

      I remember you being one of the most vocal defenders of incursion income's need to be nerfed, which you seem to have regretted afterwards. No reason for you to regret a tech nerf of course, but I join one of the previous comenters in asking, what do you think should be done to solve the tech problem?

      Delete
    4. "If you're a renter alliance or an alliance that makes ISK by charging member fees or something, that's time taken away from your PvP players because they have to go rat or do incursions or wormholes or something."

      But if the numbers are correct the time advantage is just one or two minutes per day per member. Does this sound like a big deal to you?

      Your perspective is wrong because you are a small-roam-pvp-pilot. You do lose more than 35 million isk per month to pvp, the average goon does seems not to lose that much:
      "I rather mention that there was about 5000 members in GSF a year ago. So the Tech income/capita is 35M. Having tech moons saved GSF about HALF AN HOUR null ratting."

      Delete
  16. how does 90% of the other alliances without any tech moons pay for their sov/reimbursement/supercaps?

    how about you gather some finacial informations from alliances without techmoons?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How about you send me some or send me someone that has it and I'll be happy to?

      Delete
    2. It's called renters.
      Look at -A-, solar, etc etc. They are ALL renting out space.

      Delete
  17. I've only been playing for a few months, so forgive me if my question is dumb:

    If ship building and reimbursement programs become prohibitively expensive as a result of a tech nerf, wouldn't that reduce or eliminate a nullsec alliance's ability to recruit newbie players on any significant scale? In other words, will newer, lower-SP players have a viable income stream in null -- one that will allow them to buy new ships when they get popped on fleet ops?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tech moon is not the only income for 0.0. For like -A-, you can ratting, you can running anomalies, and you can make lot's of isk by scanning down 9/10,10/10 and get nice faction drop from it. The problem with tech moon, from what Jester has been blogging for so long, is that that kind of income is imbalance, relatively risk free the way you making the money. Yes it would take lot's of man power defending your mining pos, but it's not the same story for small gang ganking moon goo as ganking ratter/site runner.

      Delete
    2. Let's clarify something. Nullsec alliances don't reimburse every ship that is lost. Lost a hulk while mining or a Navy Raven while ratting? Too bad. A stray neutral come in and you lose your ship fighting? Too bad. Even a bash versus a 20-person Rote Kapelle roam team will usually not have ship reimbursement except for maybe logistics ships. Individual corps within the alliance will probably buy newbies all the T1 cheap ships they need. However, a large call to arms (CTA) fleet with a set fleet doctrine and official fleet commander is where the alliance offers replacement ships.

      In other words, the alliance usually doesn't buy you every ship. You will need your own income stream, but decent space will give you ample opportunity to earn isk relatively safely and easily.

      Delete
    3. I'm going to go out on a limb and venture that a cheap tackle replacement fund is a whole different creature from the replace-all-the-things policies of the moon blocs. Only the most abject newbie weeps over the cost of an Atron.

      Delete
    4. It depends largely what CCP will do if they "nerf" tech, and what this ominous ring mining will do once released (ie. might it replace moon mining completely or just add to it).

      CCP has a very bad track record of fiddling with interdependencys, like the faction warefare exploit, sanctum nerf, and so on.

      If they just flat out remove the prevalence of tech without giving other means of making money, in your example preferable shifting the income from alliance level to the members of an alliance, then yes, its possible a "grunt" might have a harder time.

      Hopefully before CCP pushes the button they have a few working systems ready (like the once often mentioned "farms and fields" in nullsec, they've been awfully quiet about those lately).

      But to be honest, most often newer players are helped directly by other members, be that through advice, help with PVE or just ISK. With a few known exeptions alliance have not much to do with funding individual new members.

      Delete
  18. The numbers seem way off to me, Jester.

    You say that your first three bullet points come to a total of 165 billion isk, and that there was enough left over (10 billion) to pay for a quarter of their POS fuel bill, meaning their total fuel bill is around 40 billion.

    A large tower uses 28,800 fuel blocks per month. Fuel blocks cost about 15,000 isk (averaged across all four types). So fueling a large tower costs around 460 million per month.

    A 40 billion isk fuel bill implies that they own about 85 POS, which seems unbelievably low for a 9000 man alliance.

    Is this accurate?

    Honestly, I expected the Goon tech income per month to be a lot more than 175 billion. Considering a single character can make a few billion a month pretty easily doing industry related things (PI in particular), 175 billion per month for the largest alliance in the game doesn't really seem like THAT much, though I wouldn't call it pocket change. ;)

    *Disclaimer: I am not at all saying that tech doesn't need to be fixed; it does. The fact that tech is such a huge bottleneck for every T2 item produced in the game is stupid and needs serious reworking. I just thought their income from it would have been higher than 175 billion.

    ReplyDelete
  19. CCP should find a way for Alliances to more effectively tax their members income. The idea that tech moons would create conflicted worked until one entity owns them all. They then become very hard to break. Income tax still benefits large alliances but only if they have active players. This to me seems an elegant solution because rewards alliances with an active membership but still allows them to make extra income from moons etc holding space.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you playing a different game than me? I do see conflict, but do not see anyway actually trying to break goon dominance on tech.
      No one is fighting a real war, because everyone is more or less happy, at least from the big power blocks.

      Delete
    2. PS.
      Hivemind: For those 35 Million isk per capita Goons have to actually defend those moons. Looks like not so free and passive as you think.

      (btw I think similar small scale mechanics for ore and ice mining would be good)

      Delete
  20. I'm surprised that you included POS fuel costs, but neglected to include passive income from PI, which fully offsets the fuel cost (incl. the ice products, if you don't want to hassle with ice mining). Delete the POS fuel cost from your list and you'll see the real problem with tech moons.

    The truly disturbing fact is that the tech moons contribute to the ability of the CFC to produce super caps, in numbers which are only limited by the manufacturing slots & time, and not by the manufacturing cost.

    Unless this situation is corrected, there is simply no way to militarily compete with an alliance which can afford to produce and lose a virtually unlimited number of super caps.

    At this point, null sec is pretty much doomed to stagnation, unless TheMittani plans to self-destruct the CFC from within (which would probably not be a bad idea - it would certainly make things a lot more interesting and fun in null sec).

    ReplyDelete
  21. For some strange reason, Gevlon has yet to realize that he is the only one willing to play the role of a human market bot selling skillsbooks and implants for 2-3 hours a day, every single day, for 6+ months across 4-5 accounts.

    ReplyDelete
  22. i believe Jester's real point was, "so what does CFC do with the iskies it gets from non-passive faucets?"

    ReplyDelete
  23. Would be interesting to see how the game would change if the resources to make t2 ship parts for the various races were distributed unequally across regions of space and mobility were also hampered in some meaningful way.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I'm really curious why people view the game (and 0.0) as having stagnated.

    Since being in the CFC for going on 5 months, I've seen:

    1. Siege of Tenal

    2. Campaign to take techmoons in Venal (and the creation of Otec)

    3. Deployment down to delve, to shoot structures.

    4. War with NCdot.

    I'll be honest - in all of that, I could have went for a little bit more stagnation between some of it.

    In reading the article, my theory is this:

    You (the author) do not like sov war. You simply want to do small gang warfare. In the perfect world (for you), people would own sov space, but not fight over it. And if everything has the same value, what is the point?

    Instead, everyone would need to rat, and mine - in turn giving you more pickings to attack.

    ReplyDelete
  25. TIL:
    Rote kapelle is spacepoor and Jester is Spacemad about it.

    More tears please.

    PDB

    ReplyDelete
  26. I think this conflict centered game has had its economy based around pve for damn well long enough. Moon income is growing in importance, and CCP don't need to drag it down to the level of the non-scarcity economy. Scarce goods always approach their real value, while playing with little red crosses will always be approaching its real value of nothing. I wouldn't care if there was a little more parity between r64s, but dragging them all down in order to remove a particular bottleneck would smother the very concept of conflict over resources before it really took off.

    If anything, CCP needs to put in tools or environments to allow roaming subcaps to disable or steal moon production. That would certainly spread territorial alliances thin as well as eclipse the importance of supercaps to alliance budgets. Ideally, most alliances would be prioritizing their budgets towards their pilots rather than supercapital ships, but that ball is in CCP's court.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.