Bottoms Up Part One: Income and Industry

Avatar
The online one I can think of would be pipe systems compared to dead-end systems. That has an affect on risk vs. reward and is typically a wanted thing by many miners and ratters. Other than that, you are correct in all the space being just as safe as others.
Avatar
Simple solution for mineral compression: don't apply the 37,5% character modificator to refining yield to anithing that is not an ore. Maybe adjust the mineral contents of mission loot accordingly so that mission runners don't whine. Problem solved.
Avatar
The ideas Mynnna present are a decent stab at addressing the problem -- I don't think many will disagree that something must be done, and that bottom-up income is philosophically sound -- but the devil will be in the details. For example, how does one address the issue that some parts of nullsec are much safer than others, which definitely affects the risk/reward? And even more difficult, there is the issue of how a project that is this complex interacts with CCP's new development system, which means that changes will be incremental and phased in over several expansions? At every point along the way, the mix of old and new ought to work better than the immediately previous situation.We're in the early stages of the first expansion being built in the new way, so CSM7's experience with that will be instructive when CSM8 takes over the reins. Similarly, viewpoints like Mynnna provides here will be useful to CCP Seagull as she builds a longer-term vision for EVE over the next few months.
Avatar
The problem with nullsec industry isn't that compression exists, it's that it's only really viable because of compression and even then is ball-breakingly stupid, so I'm not sure what problem you think you're solving with your suggestion.
Avatar
That doesn't really help as much as you think, as you can already get 100% in (expensive to upgrade) upgraded nullsec stations with skills and implants.You still have to cart the stuff in, and the minerals out and then cart the ships about. Compared to just taking ships from Jita.
Avatar
This actually brings up two points. First, that risk vs. reward in EVE is skewed regardless of what sort of space you're looking at. CCP's approach to risk vs. reward seems to traditionally be that the risk comes from the rats and the site accessibility, not other players. So income levels go up as the difficulty to get to and exploit the sites in question goes up, whether they be mining or PVE, but the risk of being caught by roaming gangs goes down. To truly match risk vs. reward, in the way you refer to it, you'd need to turn the current model on its head and have belt mining/ratting be the most profitable, and plexing/grav site mining be the least.The other point you bring up is CCP. I've been reading, especially on this site, many fine ideas and some very articulate hand-waving from people who play the game. But from the people who make it, I've heard next to nothing. Does CCP even have a cohesive strategy for what they'd like null-sec to be, and has anybody heard it? Do they have a plan to achieve that strategy, even if it's incomplete or in its infancy? Again, has anybody seen or heard anything of that plan?
Avatar
A few comments;Exploration differs from region to region, it's not the sites themselves that need balancing but the regions loot-tables. For example, Serpentis Magnos and Radars are worthless, however Sansha Magnos are worth more (because Sansha has T2 Armor Plate Salvage while Serpentis doesn't? How does that even make sense?) Magnos in Blood Raider space can be lucrative, I've salvaged 27 Capacitor Consoles out of one before making me a generous 324mil for around 20mins of work.Forsaken Hubs to me are the bane of 0.0, they need to be changed. They spawn the worst kind of DED in lucky circumstances and deter people from running Havens and Sanctums that can spawn some good DED's (except the Blood Raider one that can get fucked).How I invision the future of PvE in EVE? Fleet based ISK earning where spawns are dramatically reduced, bounties are dramatically increased per ship and they are given a greater set of tools and AI. Battleships with 30m bounties, with webs, scrams, MWD speed, good orbits and the potential to warp away. We should be blending PvE with the PvP - not creating two different realms.
Avatar
Personally I just want some kind of personal-level income that is actually fun to do. Shooting red crosses makes me want to claw my eyes out.If you isolate ring mining from the moon goo issue and just look at it as gameplay.. it actually sounds like a fun thing to do. As opposed to current mining. In addition to that it's also an industrial contribution to the economy, whether the rings have highends or moon minerals in them, which is more 'sandboxy' than ratting as far as I'm concerned.
Avatar
Mynnna for CSM. Every null sec player should have him as one or two on their list.
Avatar
Perhaps you would care to explain how some parts of nullsec are safer than others? Unless you're going to get down to asinine details about the entrance gates to a region or some such, they're all the same. Even then, black ops or a cloaky, nullified t3 with a cyno can get around that problem easily. If nullsec is safe, it's because the pilots there have made an effort to make it safe. Lowering the ISK making potential of a system because the pilots there have made an effort to keep the reds out punishes the pilots making the effort. That's not what should happen in any game.
Avatar
But those parts of nullsec don't always remain that safe though, look at delve for example, the space is only as safe as external entities allow it to be. Even in NPC null its not always 100% safe even with neutral stations.
Avatar
I'm assuming its a reference to the fact that isolated regions of deep nullsec like Period Basis or Omist are less likely to be visited by roaming gangs than empire-bordering areas like Geminate or Providence.However I'm not at all sure that is an "issue" that needs to be "address[ed]", since isolation from the rest of the map brings its own set of disadvantages too.
Avatar
A fine point on the mag sites. It's been so long since I've run one that I forgot they drop T2 salvage too. Also I confused radar and mag sites. T_TI agree with you re: fleet things but I don't want it to be the ONLY route to making isk. Social game or not, there should be options for more casual solo play as well.
Avatar
The new dev strategy is definitely something I tried to keep in mind as I wrote this and the followup. We certainly wouldn't get a monolithic patch that addressed everything, but things could be chunked up easily enough and addressed over a few expansions. Mining can fit into one theme, anomalies into another, exploration into a third, etc etc. The actual sov proposal itself is a /bit/ more difficult to do, but probably manageable.With regards to risk, though, as Alizabeth points out below, risk/reward in nullsec is - or should - be tied to player action (as opposed to in highsec, for example, where it's largely by fiat). A side effect of the sov idea in the next article is that player action should affect the risk:reward ratio even more than it does now... and then you could tie in things like Rhavas' local proposal that I wrote about awhile back to further that.
Avatar
I agree in general with you and Alizabeth with respect to the general principle that player effort should be able to affect risk/reward; that's sort of a given, but it should be made more explicit. It will be interesting to see what ideas you propose in the next article.I think when you see what CCP is trying to do in the Summer expansion, and in particular when you see how it evolved in January after you get elected (a given unless you get hit by a bus), there will be some refining you can do; it may not be as simple as you think because of competing resource considerations. But OTOH, those are problems you like to have.As I mentioned in my first reply, I would encourage broad discussion of these kind of topics now, because they will be useful feedback as CCP roughs out their longer term plans, and having an actual roadmap is the key to getting these things done in a coherent manner.
Avatar
I think making the sites much harder is a bad Idea, as I'm sure im not the only one who runs these things not because they're fun, but because they pay the PvP bills. Making them require a lot of different ships makes it really cumbersome to run some sites solo when noone is on and presume with the fun part of EVE.
Avatar
I strongly agree
Avatar
Magnitometric are wonderful sites , and i run them and make billions. You mean radars for datacores and decryptors , and yeah , those sux! so much that the moment i see radar i just ignore the sig.
Avatar
I think that the entire issue with nullsec PVE income is that it needs to be somewhat scalable all the way from 1 to many and from noob to veteran. As it stands, it is not suitable for noobs or low skillpoint characters without support and the high end doesn't scale well with multiple people. And as much as you evil null sec empires want to rail, decry and flatly cry about PVE, Eve by necessity has a PVE foundation and without it, you all would be out of luck. Improve the PVE and the ability to conduct business, industry and make PVE income on par in nullsec to where it becomes useful and usable by alliances, treat those who do it less like ballsweat and more like valued members of your alliance and you will see the floodgates of highsec thrown open with people moving out into null. This will provide more targets, more opportunity for PvP, more opportunity for real empire building and not just blobing timers for more boredom and making the lords of space RMT/space rich. When it becomes necessary for you PvP types to defend your space from roving bands of enemy heathens pissing off your indy pilots, you will get more PvP and the indy pilots will likely develop a little PvP savy as well.All in all you end up with more things a buildin cause more things will be asplodin and more people will be happy cause that's what makes Eve go round.
Avatar
There's not enough tritanium on a null grav site to build more than a few battleships. If you want to stop compression, go to the source ; allow these materials to be mined more easily on null.
Avatar
It is interesting after reading the articles about the Serenity server , how the chinese players seem to already be doing many of these things with pretty much the same setup on the serenity server as TQ. I remember that even though Jita also ended up as the main trade hub in game, the SOV holding alliances seem to be doing all the work in their respected space. Seeding their markets , doing the grinding in their own space and supplying pretty much all they need without all the travel back and forth from Jita as we do on TQ.
Avatar
"Lowering the ISK making potential of a system because the pilots there have made an effort to keep the reds out punishes the pilots making the effort. That's not what should happen in any game."I highly agree with Alizabeth. In my opinion such issues are a typical symptom and stay as a problem as long as CSM and CCP cling to the dogma of Risk vs Reward. Actually risk vs reward is a method to observe a game and might be a possible point of view for certain balancing attempts, but i doubt that risk vs reward is able to face the high complexity of eve. it might be more accurate to balance pve in WoW.I see many problems with the risk vs reward dogma: the most obvious it is not clearly defined. Whats actually the risk? The difficulty of the NPC? The potential of losing ones ship/assets? The effort or expenses you have to take on? The amount of time you have to invest which could have no outcome?The same goes for reward: Is it ISK or some other token of reward? Is it the good feeling of overcoming an difficult obstacle or some selfset milestone? Is it the feeling of beeing a part of something bigger or has it to be an expected playerreaction (most commonly tears) that one desired. Is it enough "to feel rewarded" or does it need a token or symbol?The next issue might be: does the player classify an intended "risk" as a risk? One can just assume what players might see as a risk but we cant observe them enough to give an objective answer what has to be a risk and what not. Again. What is a proper reward? I for once feel more satisfied and rewarded if my contribution has an impact to my corp/alliance/playercommunity, which i can acknowledge.Which brings me to the next point: how to compare different forms of risk or different forms of reward? Its easy to compare reward talking about ISK or other forms of reward tokens, but it starts to get difficult comparing to other forms like mentioned feelings.Some goes for risk: The risk facing the "difficulty" of NPCs is not comparable with the risk facing playerinteraction.To much stuff gets inlegitimatly mixed up while arguing with risk vs. reward
Avatar
The problem of low-end minerals in nullsec is, in fact, the problem of low-end minerals everywhere: even for t3 battleships (rokhs, abbadon, hyperion, maels), the most high-end intensive T1 subcaps, mining all the tritanium from veldspar requires ten time more manhours than mining all the megacyte from arkonor. This simply means that, if 10 peoples mine veldspar in highsec and one guy mine arkonor in null, they all get the same income (assuming all we produce are rokhs, and not smaller ships and mods, which require a larger part of low-end).I dont really see how nullsec mining can be attractive when it's so easy to overproduce, crashing the prices.
Avatar
Bear in mind that making targets on a tower easy to destroy would be a major disincentive to POS-based industry. If any 10-man roaming gang can disable your assembly arrays, then the cost of doing business in a POS becomes much higher than now, where it takes a decent battleship or dreadnought fleet to take out the sort of major industrial operation housed in a large POS.
Avatar
There are many things, some are player-formed (such as geographical position to how you are surrounded by friendly controlled areas) others however are game-formed and they also usually affect the player-formed aspects to some degree.Notable examples are distance to high- and lowsec, access to NPC-pockets in your area or distance to NPC-pockets and access to NPC-pockets for jump-points.Take Fountain for example: it's quite far away from highsec which is a "danger", it has NPC-pockets within the region that can offer up a "danger" by allowing clandestine elements within your control but it can also be an asset if your control is not as firm as a staging- and fixed jump-points. Similarily the region have alot of nearby NPC-pockets leading toward both Placid and Aridia lowsecs (Syndicate, Outer-ring, NPC-delve etc.) that allow you similar jump-points.However, i'm still not sure i agree with Trebor in this case either, provided he assumes that this need to be paid specific attention and caution to that. Afterall, the biggest problem in Nullsec at this point is that nothing has been fucking done yet - while it's in dire need. If anything, like Alekseyev Karrde has hinted about on his podcast, CCP should have adressed most low-intensity concerns already and it's unforgivable that they have not yet come around to do it.I strongly belive in building a new strong system bottom-up the same as the economy should be built bottom up - but the first place to start there is adressing the core economy with "game designer only" resources while they chisel out the systems to come. We don't need "Ring mining" to make mining lucrative, even if Ring mining is a more ideal system than any existing mining mechanics. What we do need is game designers who understand the balance of the game's economy (a vision), who dare tampering with it (don't pull the "players" sweepstake) and do it in a manner that is recouperable (delicate measures, percentages, quickly rebalancable and flexible to the new mechanics constructed).In that sense i guess i disagree with Mynnna on this topic too, but it was still a good article.
Avatar
"In that sense i guess i disagree with Mynnna on this topic too, but it was still a good article."Nothing I'm suggesting couldn't be achieved through delicate measures, percentages, etc. Well, some of it can't, but it's not like you'd have to do _all of this at once_. It's an end goal, little more.
Avatar
Risk should not take into account player action, but player abilities. For example: Take Period Basis. It's way the hell down in the south and no one likes it very much. It takes a lot of jumps to get there from Empire, true, however, it can be done. Also, suppose the people living next door in Delve are red. That's a lot more risk. What players may do changes from day to day, what they can do does not. In null, a pilot can always bubble, doomsday and bomb in addition to everything else they can do in low sec. That's a big addition. If one's ratting carrier gets tackled in null by a hero Rifter, a titan pops through that cyno, blows the carrier up and then jumps back home. In low sec, that Rifter would have to form a fleet. In null, if one jumps through a gate, they're greeted by a nice bunch of bubbles. They all die. In low sec, it's not that easy for gate camps to snag pretty much any player. Null space in general is dangerous because the players have a larger tool box to draw from. That is the risk, not the number of stargates leading into a system.
Avatar
"When it becomes necessary for you PvP types to defend your space from roving bands of enemy heathens pissing off your indy pilots, you will get more PvP and the indy pilots will likely develop a little PvP savy as well."At the moment, if the workers watch intel and get docked up, theres no problem - except by staying there and ceasing to be roving bands, the aggressors cannot affect any production jobs in progress, or the productivity of a system for ratting or mining.But the problem with carebears in Null, and what gets them treated the way they are, is that almost by definition they dont turn up to fleets when needed - they dont pay the PvP tax of time. Especially with the Retribution changes to T1 logi, there is no reason that a fundamentally PvP/Indy person cannot be in fleet in a useful ship.At the moment, theres no difference for Alliance income, regardless of it they dock up, blow up or fight off the aggressors ... and it would be nice if that changed.
Avatar
I couldn't agree more.
Avatar
They also have legions of bears in their ranks (the 4 largest alliances on serenity rival the CFC and HBC in size) and in general have very secure areas to do their care bearing. The presence of lowered restrictions on botting and RMTing also help.
Avatar
What about risk generated by lack of player abilities? For each of the activities you listed, the reciprocal action becomes safer/more dangerous if you alter the mechanics (e.g. by reducing player capability to control movment, static gameplay becomes riskier; by enhancing player capability to control movement, static gameplay becomes safer).
Avatar
I think you should explore your local production concerns, tie it back to concerns about which Ore players choose to mine (if they do so) based on the value in Jita.The challenges of producing ships locally is tied directly to how those minerals are obtained (locally or from high-sec). If the minerals are mined locally and bought locally then the number of jumps between the minerals location and building is a few jumps (similar to high-sec more likely than not). If the expectation is that a player has to pay 15% more than Jita in null, then it is not unreasonable to expect a similar jump for minerals at the low-end since they are in high demand (Scordite is similar in ISK/m to Arkonor when the value of Trit & Pye is 15% higher).In addition, ignoring asteroid belts (due to their lack of security) and then suggesting your new grav-sites should be easier to scan down (reducing their security) seems like a good path to not achieving your desired end-state.
Avatar
Yes some space is more "Safe" then other space. In reality there is only one way to uphold the safe:iness of your space. And thats to defend the space and to trying to deny enemy fleet to roam there freely. don't be a idiot and ratt with a neutral cloaked in system.I think Mynna have hit the nail on what nullsec need to solve the industry part.they need three things.1# Ability to build at a accelerated rate in nullsec. right now i doubt nullsec can build even the ammo needed in the stations in nullsec thats used in there ships.2# Ability to get hold of lowend ore localy. In my opinion they could fix this 2 ways 2.1# Alchemy the ability to transform highend minerals to lowend minerals. and 2.2# lowend high yeild astroids in nullsec (+20% compressed Vedspar).3# a new blue print that compress minerals so we don't have to do the walk over other ores. for example 1000 Tritanium can be compressed in to 1 Compressed Tritanium (1m3) 1:10 compression-------POS revamp: As a industrialist that build in highsec and as a nullsec dweller I do fear it. If they remove the Shield bubble it will F*k up nullsec life and formup and titan defence. if they mess with the POS in highsec then they break stuff for alot of players. Don't get me wrong I would like to revamp POS but i fear it might break the game so please thread careful.this is how i would have revamped the POS:es1# make them totally modular with a neat interface where we can play a fitting game to get them "the best possible"2# raise the cost of running a pos in highsec (just raise the isk cost of the charters) and make the nr of charters needed / h depends on the security of the system. so it will cost isk even in lowsec.3# once all the pos changes are in and verified, convert all Stations/pos to the new modular pos system.some key points on how i view modular pos.es : built on modules that can scale from a one man new player to the biggest alliances needs in a badass deathstar that can take down a super.there is three kinds of modules Resource builders, Resource users, Utility, every module get a bonus if the adjent modules are of the same kind, so stacking is a valid idea. you can also get a bonus of only using one racial type in the tower. Going all Amarr is better then mixingResource builders:#Power core: creates PG, burns fuelblock 1/h / powercore racial variant exist #Data core: creates CPU, uses power to run racial variants exist with diferent bonusesResource Users:# Defencive weapons: Guns, Missiles, figher bays you name it. you should be able to defend your POS with teef and claws also includes EWAR. # Super weapon : a POS should be able to mount a doomsday cannon if it got enough PG/CPU (make this one a fitting issue and it can posess a real threat to supers) only one super weapon / pos think deathstar. #Research bay : copy/Invention/ME/PE/reverse engineering bay#Manufactuirng bay: building slotsUtility: # ControllTower the UI interface and where the settings of the pos is done. #Mooring bay : Allowing Supercapitals to Anchor so they can not be bumped out of the forcefield# Docking bay : if you got a docking bay and a Living Quarter then you can dock with the pos and treat it like a station today with one exeption the station/pos can be destroyed with all its assets including your clone. # Living Quarters : see above# Shield extender (Think pos bubble of today) you can only have one of Shield extender and Docking bay you decide.- this option gives you the ability to convert all nullsec/highsec station/POS to the new ones. to give it a flavour the highsec ones shouldn't be destructable since that can be abused by one of the bigger coalitions.
Avatar
I think your claims are bogus. When you look at the ISK/hour of mining (based on Jita prices), mining Ark earns only 50% more dosh.That's 50% before you account for logistics.
Avatar
Sure. It doesn't need to be the most profitable activity. I'd happily trade a lower isk/hr for an activity I actually wanted to do.
Avatar
On the other hand, belt ratting (I can't speak for mining) can be easily done in a cheap, PvP fitted ship, *lowering* the risk vesus anom/plexing. As the danger of the rats increases, so does the isk value of the ship that's fighting them, and that ship will likely be more PvE specialized.On the third hand, now the rats will help you fight off a ganker, so.

Many players these days have voiced support for a bottom-up sovereignty system. Needless to say, though, such a system bolted into the game today would... well, I won't be so bold as to claim that it would fail miserably, but I do believe it would be rather lackluster. If you want bottom-up sovereignty, you need bottom-up income to be worthwhile and appealing, in all its forms, not just ratting and mining, but exploration, industry, and trade as well. Addressing all of that should be the first goal; only then can a bottom-up sovereignty system be addressed.

Before I move on, please note that in almost all cases numbers I provide are for example only. If it's a more firm example, I'll explicitly state that.

Personal Income

The purpose of revamping personal income is to emphasize personal income and an alliance's ability to derive income from it, as well as lessen the emphasis on top-down point sources such as moons. To do that, three goals need to be kept in mind. First, the income must be compelling enough to offset the risk involved in doing it in null-sec, as opposed to wandering off to low-sec for Faction Warfare missions, or to high-sec to farm L4s, or what have you. Second, the sources of income must allow for a significantly higher pilot density than they do now—several or even dozens of pilots active in a system, as opposed to two or three. And finally, the alliance needs to be able to derive a benefit from that activity being carried out in their space.

For our purposes here, I am considering personal income to be PvE activities and resource gathering. Industry and trade also count, but I'll look at them in the next section. What we're looking at here includes mining, ratting, exploration and PI.

Ratting is by and far the most common and accessible method for a null-sec pilot to make ISK. These days, it is largely (though by no means exclusively) done in anomalies. In theory, that's good, as a fully upgraded system can spawn twenty or so relatively high-quality anomalies. Unfortunately, anomaly value is not terribly well balanced. CCP attempted to balance them on an ISK:EHP ratio, which... failed miserably. Pilots overwhelmingly favor one type of anomaly (Forsaken Hubs, these days) based not on the ISK:EHP, but the ISK/hour they can earn, and will simply go to another system if they can't get them. As there are only a few Forsaken Hubs in even a fully upgraded system, this leads to a low population density and the feeling of "emptiness" as you roam supposedly inhabited null-sec. Now, perhaps this is simply a symptom of having so much space that going to another system is fine, but the poor balancing plays a factor as well. If you can get 40 million ISK ticks in a battlecruiser in a Hub (not to mention have fun doing it; it's a far more involved ratting style) and only 25 million ISK ticks doing a Sanctum in a Tengu, why would anyone in their right mind do the Sanctum? As difficult as CCP has said it would be to take a more nuanced approach to balancing anomalies, it's necessary.

There are a couple other anomaly-related ideas as well. First, newbie content. That could be as simple as making lower-end sites, those found in low-sec or high-sec, spawn in addition to their regular counterparts, or they could take the form brand new sites. The approach is not overly relevant—the point is to expand a young pilot's choices of income in null-sec from "mine, scavenge, or appear cute and clueless so his fellow pilots shower him with ISK." The other idea is group content. Right now, that's incursions, which are... imperfect. They reward well, but require a very large group and are only randomly available, which is limiting for players willing to do them. Small group anomalies in the 4-10 player range that you can just pick up and go and that pay slightly better than doing solo anomalies (or perhaps offer part of their payment in the form of items you can't get anywhere else?) would be great. This is a social game, right? Ratting solo is currently the only option and many players would continue to do so, but there's no reason cooperative PvE shouldn't exist as well.

Next up in red-cross PvE is exploration. DED and DED-like sites are in a reasonable spot. They're high effort, moderately difficult, and reward those running them well... or not at all, but it averages out. Magnetometric sites, however, are awful. Datacores are cheap and plentiful, decryptors are a one-time thing, and only a few datafiles are really worthwhile in invention, which adds up to them being fairly worthless. Revamping their loot would make them more worth running; bonus points if the new loot is something those running them might feel is something they can sell to local industrialists instead of shipping to Jita. The downside to exploration from an alliance income perspective is there is no real way to get income out of it; the modest taxes on the bounties themselves and the fees from the sale of the loot on local markets (if it's sold there, anyway) pale in comparison to the value of the loot itself. That, however, is no reason to neglect it!

Mining is the other major form of PvE, and it needs a lot of work in null-sec. There are three critical points here, all of which I've written about in the past. The first is that mining in null needs to be more worthwhile than it is now. CCP tried and failed to buff it by nerfing the drone regions, but that was a misguided attempt to restore value to the high-end minerals; instead, it eliminated the majority of the low-end supply, spiking their prices through the roof. The second point is that local low-end mineral supply needs to be available in null to facilitate production there. And finally, an alliance needs to be able to set a tax rate on mining and reasonably expect to be able to collect it. Ratters can't avoid taxes; miners shouldn't be able to avoid theirs.

PI is another form of resource gathering. The best thing CCP could possibly do to improve it would be to fix the godawful interface. More usage of more kinds of PI products would also we welcome; compare the usage of POS fuel products to anything else. Additionally, finer control over taxation would be great too, allowing for POCO owners to set the base values used to calculate taxes, as well as individually set import and export taxes at each tier. Nevertheless, PI is probably in the best place out of all forms of resource gathering. It's personal income but contributes to alliance income in a straightforward manner and it can be attacked in a couple of ways. What more could you ask for?

Last but definitely not least on the income scale are moons. Do we keep them as top-down point income sources, or nuke them and replace them with a bottom-up source, a la CCP's pie in the sky "ring mining" concept? We've already seen what moon goo prices can be like if supply exceeds demand, which is an extremely likely outcome in a bottom-up system, though far from guaranteed. On the other hand, it's entirely possible to create a system that works as-is, but more properly distributes the value of moons, and makes them worth holding, but not so valuable as to run an empire on its own. I'm not entirely decided which route I favor; both have their upsides and downsides, but it's a topic for another article. Of course, we've heard nothing about "ring mining" in months, so perhaps CCP has something entirely different in mind.

Industry & Economy

Industry and economy also provide personal income in the form of construction and sale of goods to other players in your space. Implement all the tools necessary for a vibrant economy based in null-sec, and the fees on manufacturing and trade in key stations alone would become one of the most lucrative forms of alliance income possible. A minor change to bring that about is to allow station owners to set and collect market fees and taxes; right now, they only get the broker fee, and they cannot set it. More significant changes are needed for industry itself, however.

The end goal of an industry revamp in null-sec is that it should be more worthwhile to build battleships and other high-volume items locally than it should be to import them. Right now, that's not the case. The reason why is a matter of volume movement. If I want sixty battleships in VFK, I buy them in Jita, load them up in a jump freighter, and jump to VFK. It takes about nine round trips total, plus five trips by freighter from Jita to my jump-out point.

What if I want to build those? Well, first I buy all the minerals... not to build sixty Maelstroms, but to build 6,250 425 mm Railgun Is. The mineral content for that many Maelstroms is about 8.5 million m3, so moving them raw via jump freighter is not economical. Compression is required. So, I make nine freighter trips between Jita and my build station, and spend a few days building them. Then I make a freighter trip to my jump-out point, and from there a single jump freighter trip up to Goon space to a refining station. Once there, I refine the railguns, achieving 100% yield, as I've invested in the extra training and implants required to do so in the subpar facilities found in null-sec. Unfortunately, this isn't Empire and you don't get 50 build slots and perfect refines in the same station, so I either have to make nine freighter trips again between my refinery and build station or make do with the two build slots the station has. In either case, I'm likely to have to make four more freighter trips to move the finished battleships from build station to sale hub.

So, let's recap. I can either make four high-sec freighter trips and nine jump freighter trips to import those Maelstroms, or I can make make nine high-sec freighter trips, one jump freighter trip, and then depending on my choices, make anywhere from four to 13 freighter trips and spend four to eight days building, all told. And now you know why almost no major industry takes place in null-sec. The extra time and effort required to build the same number of ships is well worth simply spending 100 million ISK worth of jump fuel to get them now.

The way to change that is to not just "nerf jump freighters" without fixing null-sec industry itself, no more than simply nerfing high-sec would be a fix for low or null-sec in and of itself. If you want people to do local industry, it needs to be worth doing in and of itself, end of discussion.

Weaselior wrote a great look at a way to revamp null-sec industry by way of the POS revamp, and I agree with every last bit of it as an ideal path. They encourage investment in space that, on the flip side, provides targets for raiders and attackers... provided, of course, that their EHP is correctly balanced. The idea of modularity is great, as it opens up possibilities like the manufacturing modules themselves being relatively easy to destroy and loot, even if the rest of the tower isn't. Of course, the industry improvements could just as easily take place inside stations, wherein disrupting the industry means attacking and disabling something(s) on the station to halt construction. The same caveats about tweaking the EHP apply. Regardless of the details, though, the objective is to improve a system that—as we'll see in the next section—contributes to the sovereignty system directly. Therefore, attackers must be able to disrupt it in some way.

A Few Ancillary Points

There are a couple of concepts that are related to income and the bottom-up concept. The first is alliance level income tools. Throughout this article, I've used the term "alliance income", but to be perfectly realistic it's corp income. Almost everything is done at the corp level: running POSes, running POCOs, running stations, claiming systems (an alliance takes sovereignty, but a corp in the alliance claims it and is billed for it), the whole nine yards. Some alliances (such as GoonSwarm) make do by having almost all of the income and bills handled by one corp on behalf of the alliance; others split both income and expenses by corp. I'd like to see tools mirroring corp-level tools at the alliance level. Give alliances that run everything at the alliance level the tools to properly do so, while continuing to allow alliances that prefer to run things on a corp by corp basis that opportunity.

And second, if the usage of space is to play such a critical role in sovereignty, the concept of renters or pets would run into some issues. Unless you piled them all into your own alliance, the renters would undermine your control of your own space... and for that matter, allies allowed to use your space would have the same problem! I personally dislike the idea of having renters, but if an organization wants to play Space Warlord and do nothing but PvP while charging their renters to use their space, more power to them. To that end, we need a treaty system. Among the features would be the ability to have one organization sign over its usage contribution to a spaceholder.

Conclusions

The key takeaway here is just as I stated before: alliance members should have a variety of options for moneymaking in their own space. Whether that's ratting, mining, or industry, it should feel worth doing compared to making money elsewhere. In addition, that space should support a significantly higher active population than can be reasonably attained now. Both qualities are necessary for the topic we'll look at in the next article: a bottom-up sovereignty system.

Seven year veteran & economics guru of EVE Online as well as CSM 8 representative. On the side I play PS2, WOT and Hearthstone.