The Case Against Moongoo Depletion

Avatar
I would do the resource distribution like i did it in my old game (programmed arount '04 - learned a lot from it :D).Lets say all moons can have all materials. Some moons are more likely to attract material x. If 100 Units are mined, they will be distributed randomly (but weighted wtih the moons properties) to another moon.Scan-Probes should just get you (better the higher the level) information of WHAT is minable in that moon.With time the "good" moons wont be the ones in the "safe homeland" as they are constantly mined. The really juicy moons would be in places noone really likes to be, thus inforcing more fights over them (which we all want).Moons are a conflict-driver, but imho it shouldnt be "that 1000 moons are worth conflict, the others arent".Before people get pissed: This is just a quick thought under the premise that moons should deplete. Its far from finished and i honestly personally would take moonmining out of the game and replace it with the announced ring-mining.
Avatar
Smaller alliances can also be much more population dense. If an alliance holds 3 or 4 systems, the likelihood of them being able to manage a complete scan of their territory is high, even with the reduced manpower. I think that this would not so much hurt large alliances, but encourage alliances with good population density relative to their held space.
Avatar
You realize that there's almost no chance that one of these 4 systems have a tech moon ? If it's totally random, you'll need lots of space to have enough luck of finding one on your territory.
Avatar
I think they think that if moon goo floats around they'll get a shot at it, not really thinking that even if they are in lowsec mining a moon that a week or so into the spawn cycle a large alliance won't just reinforce their POS and have at it.
Avatar
This is a farse and relies on the fact large power blocs don't have detailed information on their regions. The large power blocs have the man power to keep entire regions of Moon and POS data up to date.I'm in a large powerbloc and our scouting division is fucking boss. We have detailed data on half the regions in the game complete with moon goo, POS setup with screenshots, ownership data and timer notifications. This is constantly up to date even when it isn't all that critical. Imagine the extra effort that would be put in if alliance income is at stake.If you want to turn it into a "Information Warfare" game, small alliances are going to lose so hard.
Avatar
Moon harvesters mine 100 units per cycle. So you want someone to have to reconfigure the POS after every cycle (every hour)? I can't figure out how to make your idea make sense.If you put good moons where "no one really wants to be" then people will want to be there and yes maybe that will cause a single fight, but then 1 alliance will get control of that area and that will be the end of it. This is how it is now.
Avatar
There are no more moon-wars, everyone can field dreads and titans, but nobody can field more capitals that the goon-test twins. There are just moon hand-overs as soon as someone does not agree with the goons. Tribute lasted a bit longer, but still, you were probably not really trying i guess.This is just a post by goons hoping they dont have to scan every moon to find more tech ones their current moons are depleted
Avatar
Actually, many goons (myself included, I've written on it) think that any system involving moons is a shit system and would /like/ to see things transition to a bottom-up sort of thing where individual players mine the moongoo (I don't care about the specifics of "how") and alliances are able to tax it. In a system like THAT, a better argument could be made for randomness.And lol @ including test in that. test has fuck-all for moons, why do you think they were desperate enough for income to start a rental program? ^_^
Avatar
Your post is a bad, uninformed and ignorant one.
Avatar
"Moons should deplete because Goonswarm is too powerful"Thank you for your valuable contribution, nameless veldspar miner.
Avatar
Thief persuading other people that stealing is good for economy. Great work.
Avatar
What the hell are you talking about?
Avatar
The point of moon goo depletion isn't to create conflict, its to prevent one alliance *cough*Goonswarm*cough* from holding a monopoly on the tech or whatever other mineral is valuable at that time.Also, Goons are against moon depletion? *Shocked face*
Avatar
Right, an alliance like Goonswarm is terribly disadvantaged when it comes to scanning new moons. We certainly don't have legions of members willing to do some moon scanning in exchange for a fair amount of ISK."Nerf Goonswarm, they are too successful," said the failure.
Avatar
What I'm saying is that the moons would re-spawn elsewhere, and then you would no longer have the mountain of tech you do in the north.I'm not saying they are too successful, I'm saying moon mining is broken and Goons are trying to make people think that one of the better solutions is a bad solution.Its certainly better than leaving it as it is.
Avatar
This article's logic is full of holes. I don't want to write an essay in response but I want to highlight a few brief points that seem glaring to me.1) Saying that moon mining is not "safe" without recognizing the safety is relative to your other NS options is disingenuous. The safety comes from the timers, the effort of other blocs to take, and their defensibility by large numbers. This is all brushed over with the briefest of rationalization.2) CCP's ability to regulate the market is not a valid piece of information. The price would settle around the price it takes cobalt to transform into tech. Supply would only dip long enough for this to become reliably profitable. Regulation would come out of this system.3) Scanning being a tedious process says nothing about the viability of moon depletion, only that extra work would be required to access the vast amounts of money in tech moons. Again, the claim that a large scale scramble for moons would occur "only" every 6 months is much more preferable than the status quo for many, obviously including those proponents of depletion. So instead of defending depletion against some mythical 3rd solution where we get shakeups every week, instead you should be defending your position against the status quo.IN CONCLUSIONThis article was clearly whipped up yesterday at halftime of a football game and was not meant to be examined in any detail. A more complete analysis would be quite desirable, I'd be interested in actual arguments against this proposed fix.
Avatar
1) They are extremely lucrative to hold, making them attractive targets. You are blatantly ignoring almost the last three years of 0.0 warfare.2) Says who? Cobalt and Platinum moons would be affected by depletion as well, and they'd be a lot less worthwhile to hold considering that low-end moon mineral mining is only ever done to offset the cost of running a POS. Low-end moons are not towered specifically for mining.3) Nice strawman, but I'm not in favor of the status quo. I'm also not in favor of another dumb RNG-based mechanic that would inevitably have the effect of skyrocketing T2 prices.
Avatar
Moon depletion will increase the value of moon minerals with increasing prices all over the market. I would do a weekly scan of moons that have a new POS on it that wasn't there last time and add the result to a moon spreadsheet. If it is valueable it will take a day to reinforce it and two days to own it, and those alliances that have already enough power to hold tech or whatever is value atm will hold those easily. tl;dr: let some scrub scan all the moons and when he finds one I find his results a few days later and there goes his investment.
Avatar
So says the bloc with all the Tech already under their control. I'm sure there's no bias there.
Avatar
Tech is the only moon mineral, right?
Avatar
"Bottlenecks appear and vanish as moons respawn in more or less trafficked places, and CCP, unable to count on a predictable rate of production, loses any ability to regulate the market whatsoever."There are enough moons so that the new rate of supply should average out to a new stable equilibrium, absent intentional mass interdiction effects induced by mass player action. The period of possible new and changing bottlenecks would be of short duration, if not zero duration. Remember the central limit theorem, weak law of large numbers, etc. At the sizes of n we're talking about with moons, convergence is extremely close to 1. Even if the market was unregulatable, I'm not sure that's a very convincing point...what's so good about predictable market for nullsec goods? I think the article would be stronger without the quoted sentence.I don't know enough about nullsec to comment on the rest of the article, it all seemed reasonable enough otherwise.
Avatar
Can't help but notice this only seems to have become a issue AFTER the CFC took over a majority of the tech moons. Kinda makes everything sound like "Waaaah, we want moongoo too!" But I'm sure that everybody is only interested in fair play and not taking a bite out of the big bad CFC for down the road.
Avatar
Then argue for tech to be reseeded across the universe once or change mechanics to make R64s (not concentrated in the north like tech) the bottleneck instead of arguing for a terrible, terrible solution? :cripes:Plus unless you changed those mechanics with the fix you would still have most tech spawning in goonspace since it's a regional mineral concentrated in caldari space. And if you have that change already coded, why not avoid the tedium of moon depletion?
Avatar
Tech is the only one with it's own coalition protecting it and keeping it out of the hands of everyone else.
Avatar
Basically Ancyker is correct...the key point is to realize that while yes this would "inforce[sic] more fights over them", you're talking about inducing fights in previously unwanted areas between the large coalitions and the smallest and weakest nullsec alliances who currently live in the most unwanted areas. A mechanic specifically designed to create the most unfair fights possible? I'd rather stick with the status quo.
Avatar
Nah, moongoo depletion has been discussed for far longer.
Avatar
My bad then, I tend not to pay attention to eve-o forums :effort:
Avatar
All i read is some whining about: dont make our tech go away or letvus work for it!
Avatar
what should happen is that CCP removes alot of tech moons from the north and shift them to regions with no/barely any tech moons untill every wind direction in eve has (about) the same amount of tech moons.
Avatar
See thats not a terrible idea. But that still leaves the issue of if everybody has tech moons, what reason is left to fight? Planting a flag in space?
Avatar
There needs to be consideration given to variable yield and rundown durations; the total amount of raw product remaining inside the moon is not something that should be visible to any mechanism in game until it starts to deplete, at which point it should fall off over a period of a month or so, and at this point "trace" deposits should start appearing on other moons.This would stop easy calculations on a moons worth - that moon which might deplete in 2 months time might instead have another 6 to 8 months of high yield to run on it.
Avatar
Can't agree with this enough. Randomized goo spawning will cause havoc for smaller alliances - as it stands, many small-timers survive because their region is literally too shitty for large alliances to bother. If some poor sod gets a coupon tech moons in their area it's almost guaranteed that the big guys will come in, curbstomb the incumbent, and take the goo. So every 6 months it's a gamble of whether you'd be ping-ponged across the galaxy or not. Worst is the big guys have the manpower to find the moon before the smaller guys, so you may get attacked/camped before even knowing why...
Avatar
I think an issue many people are missing, maybe do to blind hate of the CFC is that Null Sec is not that profitable and moons is the only real income for alliances. Mining Null Sec ore is nothing as WH's have crashed the prices of high end ores and there is plenty of good articles already on how bad Null Sec industry is already and how it can't compete with high sec. Also, individual pilots can not make there own money to support them selves by ratting as well, the rats are shit. This means less income to an alliance from taxes and Sov bills are not cheap. The are lots of other parts that are broken about Null as and discussed in articals here. Also all the people he crying about moons should move ask them selves how much they want to pay for T2 ships, because all tech will go up in price the harder it is to get. The issue people should focus on isn't tech moons, but how to make Null Sec better then high sec and all aspects.
Avatar
reason is to get more tech moons, which are still worth it then, so you will have good fights over tech moons in almost every region in eve,
Avatar
Seems to me all those goons running around scouting moons in other people's sov would infact create conflicts, And since the people who own it would know you where looking to scan moons they would know where those ships were headed. While it might not cause large scale wars it would definatly cause pvp. And while large blocs would and probably could.come take the moons once people began Goo harvesting ops. Large blocs would not get the Goo that those smaller corps harvested thereby breaking the monopoly. I can't say I know that would improve null space. Just that this article is pretty clearly propaganda.
Avatar
Meh, the people who are proponents of this change are the have-nots who want to have their shitty renter system ~randomly~ become an isk-printing funzone, all the while not having to fight for it, because their moon is hiding in the 182k other moons in the game.It doesn't make sense. The current moon-mineral balance is out of whack, but making respawning moons and no region-specificity reduces the unique resource characteristics of each region. There should be a heirarchy of space- not all space should be created equally- by security status, by region, by moon distribution, by the type of pirate in the belts. The problem is the r64s are not the top dog, which are more varied and also rarer.Change the bottleneck- making moons variable is no good for the game.
Avatar
"... what's so good about predictable market for nullsec goods? ..."Moon materials are used to create a variety of goods, especially T2 items. Since T2 products can be found in all security space, the impact is not contained solely within nullsec markets.
Avatar
Or you just give blocs a reason to blue *almost* everyone.
Avatar
Anyone who proposes such a thing have never had to deal with pos setup/teardown on any significant scale.
Avatar
why in god's name would they go into alliance's space to scan moons and not one of the dozen regions the CFC owns?
Avatar
I don't think there is. This shouldn't be an issue about breaking up a coalition controlling the market on a single item. The CFC is willing to field the numbers to claim and protect it. There is a serious demand for it and if people are enraged about it, they need to organize and field the numbers to reclaim those assets.This difference is economic power creates conflict between people (CFC vs. the Eve world). Conflict is good and I hope you see it that way. I don't believe the CFC will hold these moons forever. Now you all who have your panties in a knot need to get over it and get organized. I'd like a good invasion of our space.
Avatar
How is a covert ops running around your space going to create pvp?
Avatar
Yes, that is obvious. I should have said "predictable market value for nullsec components" to be less ambiguous.
Avatar
His point is that if you change the entire moon mining system on the basis of Tech alone, you're screwing over everyone else who uses other moons for whatever reason.Besides, any system of rotation or depletion would not only favour existing large coalitions as the article stated, if anything it'd encourage forming even larger coalitions that control even larger amounts of space, just to increase the odds of good moons ending up in a controlled region (even if they weren't scanned out, it'd at least be denying your opponent the moons as well).
Avatar
More monopolies lot less. I'd like to see Tech exist in every region but with one region as the primary source. Then ditto for other moon minerals. It then becomes a matter of who can affectively protect their monopoly and you get lots of fights as people try to bust monopolies or integrate two critical ones together.
Avatar
"Goo harvesting ops"You're an idiot.
Avatar
If there are 400 tech moons in the game right now, why can't they make 800 spawn in rotation? Who's to say this bottleneck will even exist if this happens? Would this not force everyone to gather every mineral (worth anything) within their own territory since they don't know what will spawn next? A little boom/bust probably won't hurt anyone besides the large organized power blocks since their predictable income would not be as it was.
Avatar
Pretty much. This would make it near-impossible for the smaller guy to hold a few moons or do moon reactions.The massive drop in Advanced Materials from the market would be immediately noticeable as T2 prices rocket up. I personally create enough T2 material to make a few JumpFreighters per month. I am barely even a drop in the market. The majority of Advanced Materials are made by individual players or corps, NOT by alliances.The proposed change would make it too difficult for any corps or single person(s) to find and tower moons to keep their reactions going and to break even on their investments.I would expect T2 prices to double, or worse.
Avatar
What you guys are forgetting is that the majority of reactions are done by indavidual players and corps. NOT Alliances.
Avatar
If CCP went toward Dynamic Distribution, they would probably add to the total of rare moons ingame. And larger power blocs would not have natural dominance. If a lowly scout identified a Tech moon, whats to keep them from bringing in Alt corp for personal wallet?
Avatar
Once you have 35k members to form up at a certain time and place, yes they are incredibly safe. Sorry but its true.If you could Ninja in and "Gank" Moons like you could a Hulk that would be unsafe.Take NCDOT vs GSF for example, we realized once we lost a Moon to GSF there was literally no chance in hell we could get that moon back, so we fought our hardest usually outnumbered 2-3:1 and might have saved it for a week or so but in the end it was SAFE to say GSF/CFC was taking it.There is no combating the idea that GSF having the largest numbers in the game and now hving a even shorter route from Vale through tribute to Haul the stuff makes it a totally safe mining practice for them.Unsafe= Hulk in BeltSafe= Even if attacked you get to chose a time and place, and have 3x the numbers of the enemy, meaning you can pick your best Timezone vs our worst.Its lazy and safe, its a fact.A better idea is to take ALL Tec moons lets say 400 and use a RNG and scatter them totally randomly through out all EVE not just the north, al lte sudden provi would have moons to actually figt for, then you wouldnt get 1 powerblock that could span the map.No one can argue even while we owned Moons it was a broken system. And Alchemy was a joke. Eve was never made for 1 moon esp a R32 to be worth the most of anyothers, it was meant to have all moons worth something of almost equal portions. This north western Blob of guys getting 400 moons to themselves just breaks the game more and more and makes sure no wars break out there.One of the toughest groups in Eve now tried to fight the Blob and look what happened, sorry you cant fight the tide, they need to make it truly fair so a small but very well suited alliance can own a few moons without having to declare allegiance/Becoming Pets or Partners with bosses or how ever you want to say it.DotBros vs almost any other entity in game would have had a far better chance, but its hard fighting the biggest numbers and the guys who own 80% of eve`s wealth all at once.Please no ban for disagreeing
Avatar
I agree, random moving of moon mineral spawns solve nothing. Instead of driving warfare, people would just wait for some to spawn in their AOR and mine it. it also adds logistical burden. I do think that they could be BETTER drivers of conflict if designed a bit different. There is a proper place for 'timed' warfare, and a place for impromptu warfare. Moons and minerals could provide both. I had an idea where minerals could be interdicted and stolen. Not too much, say 50% if every opportunity was taken. But control of the moon would be determined by 'timed' events to enable large scale fights.No point in developing it further than that. And While I am no fan of GSF, success begets success, and their leaderships is doing what it takes to keep the ball rolling. There is dishonor in numbers, its how RL wars are won. If you want numerically fair, go play WOT clan wars. The only danger comes in suffocating yourself of targets, but with as polarized as null sec becomes over time, I can only see this happening if GSF opponents simply stop playing.So, yeah good on you guys, go get them, or something.
Avatar
bah, no dishonor in numbers....
Avatar
They have to find it first, Which even if it took them 2-3 weeks they would make off with 6-8 bil once they refined it once more so a pos setup= 1 bil, they net gain 5-7 bil....Im sure thats more than worth it to some smaller guys
Avatar
Andski you really think its not broken the way it is?Its not about GSF, this mechanic was broken way before, maybe you wernt around when BoB had the same thing going....Well guess who was the loudest and most vocal about how broken Delve and Querious`s moons were? Thats right GSF.So they traded one set of broken moons for another.So I`ll ask again do you think the Moon system is fine the way it is?
Avatar
The problem is that now tech is essentially controlled by a single entity and the isk it produces makes it neigh on impossible for anyone to mount a credible attack on them; where they may have caused conflict in the past they won't in the future. What they have done is cemented the position of a single power block in place.I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting it would be possible to remove a tech moon from the CFC, PL etc? Who in game could credibly mount an attack on say Razor's tech moons? No-one, the ISK generated from those moons have allowed the people that hold them to gain an insurmountable advantage.I personally would like to see moon goo removed entirely from the game and replaced with something like ring mining which could deplete. But, to do that a more elegant way of large alliances raising revenues would have to be created to supplemental the drop in goo ISK.It seems bonkers that someone like HBC can't have a more sophisticated tax system to make ISK from all their members and assets. Sov holders (and any alliance for that matter) should be able to set taxes on all incomes, rent offices to traders in stations, lease systems to miners, etc so the sov they own actually generates income. This should be done through an in game mechanic.That way groups that provide great in game content will be rewarded by more members and more tax revenue.This articles concludes that Tech moons will drive conflict because it did in the past. but pass performance is never and indication of future performance. What in fact has happened is the creation of a 0.0 where 3/4s of the inhabitants are either blue or have agreements not to attack each others sov. It's undeniable that moon goo has created a status quo that won't change whilst they remain ISK printing machines.
Avatar
While there could be things to say about the moongoo dynamics, alternatives and workaround (like ring goo mining or similar), I'm quite surprised that the "smart solution" of randomizing the goo's spawns is still considered valid by someone. It is pure bullshit from any side you look at the subject and it's not a solution in any possible case. Those supporting it are just rage posters period
Avatar
I'm not defending some stupid pubbie that has no idea what he is talking about but TEST does have moons. It has over 80 moons which accounts for just over 50% of it's income. The accounting spreadsheet is public, I suggest you look it up before commenting next time.
Avatar
Nobody is big enough to bust the monopolies though.
Avatar
Thank you for joining the chorus of "nerf Goonswarm, they're too successful" cries.
Avatar
Don't delude yourself. A week or two was being generous, we'd find moons within days at the latest. You wouldn't recoup your lost POS and modules in that time, assuming you were even able to get what you mined out of the POS.
Avatar
All I read in your comment is "please nerf successful alliances so that us nobodies can have a chance."
Avatar
Tech is indeed a problem but RNG-based depletion mechanics that don't actually address the bottleneck but restrict supply even further are not the solution.
Avatar
People are asking for the mechanic to be nerfed, who is taking advantage of it is irrelevant.
Avatar
Depletion is not the only solution. It is not the best solution. It is not even a good solution. In fact, it just creates problems without solving any, disqualifying it as a "solution."
Avatar
Most of hte Tech wouldnt respawn in goon space if moon depletion was added in, it would randomly respawn SOMEWHERE in low/nullsec.I'm not arguing for moon depletion, I'm just saying that its a HELL of a lot better than leaving goons to horde tech for another year or two, by which point unless nanotransistors or devalued, they could still have a stockpile of them sitting in Jita ready to sell to pad their wallet like BOB did when the moon monopoly they had was nerfed.
Avatar
I agree, removing tech is the solution. Finding a way to allow alliances to make revenue from their members is the problem. The latter must precede the former.
Avatar
"Tech was fine until Goonswarm held it"
Avatar
The latter must be preceded by income-generating activities being worth doing in nullsec instead of hisec, but that's a tough call for CCP after they've pampered hisec for years.
Avatar
Are you aware of the fact that tech has already been nerfed by recent alchemy changes? It can't be cartelled anymore as cobalt and platinum moons are everywhere and can be used to make tech products.And seriously, unless they changed the coding for moon allocation tech would predominantly spawn in caldari space (aka: the north) as it is a caldari regional moon mineral. It wasn't a statistically anomaly that all the tech wound up in the north.
Avatar
They added cobalt alchemy as a form of preasure valve.If Goons decided they want to do a Tech Interdiction like they do with ice, nanotransistors could be made with Cobalt.However, it is still cheaper to do tech production vita Tech moon, so Tech moons remain with the most valuable moons, over most R64s.I watched the Cobalt changes with caution hope, but Tech moons are still ridiculously valuable for a R32.
Avatar
ISK making in 0.0 Sov is better than high sec and it's pretty safe. I live in NPC null, when I want to rat I fly into cloud ring and around the north because it's safer than doing it in NPC 0.0: there are fewer people trying to kill me there.I must admit chuckling at the risk/reward complaint about sov held 0.0 anyone who lives there and finds it risky is frankly doing it wrong. At that rate the highest rewards should be in NPC 0.0. Open dotlan and look at kills in curse and compare it to tenal for the last 24 hrs.When I looked Tenal has 50 ship kills and over 2000 rats. One system in Curse has more ship kills than the whole of Tenal, whereas Tenal has one system where more rats have died than in the whole of Curse. I think sov 0.0 does fine on the 'risk/reward'.
Avatar
So, as long as CCP replaces your loss of income from Tech, you're good. Excellent reasoning there!
Avatar
change whats needed to build tech 2 ships maybe? not really sure how it works so i wont comment further
Avatar
We have at least 16 Tech moons, over 40 Neo, over 20 Dys. Our income from moons every month is ~200 bill. Renting is a "supplement" bringing in just over a 1/4 of what we get from moon goo.To put this in perspective, we can pay all our sov costs, our sub-cap and capital reimbursements and POS fuel all on our current moon goo. That is being pretty dangerous though and would leave us susceptible to a big welp or overly dependent on the fluctuations of the moon goo market, which is why renting is used to supplement.Not that I disagree with the point of your post, alliance income should be bottom up and moon mining should be replaced with a more player oriented system, but you probably shouldn't make comments about things you don't even have the facts about.
Avatar
It's funny how you state "moon mining is safe" immediately followed by a story about how you lost your moons and couldn't do anything about it.
Avatar
So "risk-free group activity in hisec where anything that tackles you gets instapopped by CONCORD if not your fleet" means it should pay out more than a "risky solo activity in nullsec where nobody will save you?"You're an idiot.
Avatar
Because there are no known alternatives, moron?
Avatar
Disqus sometimes loads new comments with the wrong name unless you actually hit F5 to reload comments. He didn't use your name.
Avatar
Thank you for putting words in my mouth, moron. I've never said "tech is fine deal with it get 0wned lol," I've said that moongoo depletion is fucking dumb. Keep up.
Avatar
Man it must own to be illiterate, point out where I said that tech is fine.
Avatar
You fix Tech itself, not redistribute moons so that "everyone wins."Also rotation/depletion won't cause conflict, stop saying it would.
Avatar
If it's in a system held by an alliance, they'd get the notification that it was anchored in their space. The tower would probably not make it to be onlined.
Avatar
Because all moon conflict would be pointless?
Avatar
Name calling, really? I thought this site strived to be better than EN24.
Avatar
Different region doesn't matter. I don't care about who is having sov somewhere. If you don't respect sov at all as a given, the location of a moon becomes unimportant.
Avatar
You can certainly go back there. Need help with that?
Avatar
Wow! Disagree with someone who writes a piece on TM.C and you get threatened with a ban.Classy.
Avatar
I don't think you should remove the moongoo but instead once they do the pos revamp im for moving it from a passive activity to mine the ore to an active activity.Here is an example how it could work:A moonmining array is mounted on a pos, the array breaks off minable dust around the planet (ring mining).a specific ring mining module / ships is used to crunch the ore in to the product that can be deposited on the pos. the ore around the ring depends on the ratio of ore in the planet.Basicly it gives the roamers more juicy targets and move the isk in bottom up approach instead of a top down approach like its now (Player->corp->Alliance) from a (Alliance->Corp->?player) also it produces more"industry work" for the alliance witch in time leads to more juicy kills for everyone.what it also do is giving the opportunity to "Ninja mine"
Avatar
I blame the autism spectrum. It's not your fault, you were born that way.I never threatened you with a ban.
Avatar
If you guys want legitimate debate around the articles you publish maybe it would be a good idea to grow a thicker skin when people offer a countervailing view? Just for the record, I've never insulted you I've merely questioned the premise of your article. Your response in the defence of your ideas is to call me an 'idiot' and suggest a mental impairment.Maybe in future you could just turn comments off on your articles?
Avatar
Your mistake is in assuming this is an unbiased news site. It is not it is part of a propaganda department and debate isn't really wanted although a bit is useful to maintain the illusion of unbiased reporting / writing.Read the articles, enjoy them as they are excellent on the whole but never forget the agenda behind them and this entire site.
Avatar
Your comments aren't "countervailing" - look it up rather than simply using your thesaurus. Also, are you saying that autism is a mental impairment? That's a new low.
Avatar
Hey, you seem the sort of chap who must have the last word. However, before you do I'll point out that autism is classed as a cognitive defect so it is a mental impairment. I'd also point out the only person here who has used it as an insult was you.
Avatar
I think this site is generally unbiased and when it isn't it normally points it out.What you have here is an author seems unable to debate his position without some sort of emo rage and name calling. Maybe he's in the wrong gig?
Avatar
As to the site I think your being over generous but its a matter of personal opinion at the end of the day.In regard to the author of this piece, he gets so wrapped up in his own position he does not seem able to debate it without resorting personal attacks such as "your and idiot" and references to how far along the autistic spectrum the commentator is. This has always been one of his weaknesses, check the comments section of any of his articles and you will see the same pattern.
Avatar
If only the arguments against my position didn't basically boil down to "this is literally the only solution," right?
Avatar
Didn't realise he had form, lesson learnt. Cheers.
Avatar
Are you seriously going down the route of suggesting that this site should never publish any features discussing an author's position on something? We try not to favor any side when writing about conflicts, but this is an opinion piece. I figured the title would make that clear. Was it not clear enough?
Avatar
If you're going to write an opinion piece it probably helps if you can tolerate other people politely disagreeing with you. Clearly you cannot.
Avatar
So getting back to the topic: why should risk-free hisec incursion running continue to be more lucrative than anything in 0.0?I think that was where you just started off on how I was ~mean~ to you and didn't actually discuss anything else.
Avatar
Why would you want to hear the opinion of someone you've called and autistic idiot? Moreover why would I want to debate that with you, because judging by the comments you've posted here you're just going to get grumpy.
Avatar
So you don't actually have an argument, good to know.
Avatar
Well given you moved the scope of what I actually said which was I have no problem with sov 0.0 anom runners earning about the same isk as a high sec incursion runner, I'm not sure what argument you want me dance around? Tell you what, you write a piece about why "0.0 anom runners should earn more than hi sec incursion runners" if I disagree with it I'll submit an article to this site saying why.Can't say fairer than that.
Avatar
i want to down vote you but i'd have to log in for that so i just type it here
Avatar
Fun history fact: The most valuable moongoos used to be spread evenly throughout the EVE galaxy. Then CCP changed the recipes involved in T2 production. This suddenly made technetium, formerly a slightly less valuable and region restricted goo type into the king of goos becuase it ended up in every T2 hull, and a whole bunch of important modules and ammo types.
Avatar
Scanning is a tedious process; with the exception of the Prowler, blockade runners are not suitable for this task.why is scanning with a blockade runner relevant?
Avatar
Survey Probes are large and require quite a bit of cargo. You usually need an hauler alt to carry them for you when you're in the middle of a large scanning run.
Avatar
my personal opinion... moons may not be the actual problem but a agitated symptom of something more fundamental. why is tech lauded over? cause its used in a huge majority of stuff we as eve players want, use and prefer of over other stuff. Ask yourself this... why do we have 4 moongoo types for every rarity level? does it not make sense that these 4 types per rarity coincide with the 4 major factions in Eve Online? do we not have ships that are for the most part separated into 4 distinct groups based on race?Surely it makes sense that if i were to build a T2 Minmatar ship it should require T2 components made out of the moongoo from moons more densely populated in Minmatar/Angel space?Tech is lauded over 'cause its used in every races T2 ships and in all T2 mods etc... but is mainly distributed in the area of space where it should be.Tech moons are NOT the problem, Technecium being a vital part in every T2 item in Eve Online IS the problem. You've all been fighting over the wrong area of the game that NEEDS change, and been doing it partly fueled by either jealousy or ego and its blinding you from seeing the real issue!
Avatar
Wouldn't that also effect all moons and their resources? That would make production messy I think. I thought the point was to create more and fight for it more.
Avatar
I have said this before and this is how I feel to make moon mining work and still allow alliances to fight over resources. Make mooning mining an extension of PI. Now you have in a way depleteable resources and it is put into the players hand and not the alliance. Use the POCO as the extraction point and allow alliances to tax this. Still have income at an alliance level but this opens it up to more players and makes the POCO's in a system more of a valid target. Want to hamper your enemeys income take a gang out and reinforce the POCO that has the nice moons on it.
Avatar
5-7 bil in 6 months? You can do better than that with missions, and blocs aren't going to come around looking to kick bears out of their missions run them themselves to keep that profit >_>
Avatar
"I have no problem with sov 0.0 anom runners earning about the same isk as a high sec incursion runner"I'll let them know that they have your blessing. They'll be pleased to know that you're fine with them making almost as much as the hisec incursion runners in their risk-free environment.In all seriousness, 0.0 anomalies should most certainly exceed hisec incursion running by more than a hair's breadth. Incursions in hisec should not be a viable way to make 0.0-level income in absolute safety.
Avatar
Post your last lost mail from running an anom.
Avatar
also have nullsec npc space in a ring around lowsec, where poses cant be deployed, so no jump bridges, anything you bring to lowsec is a risk, no ezpz jump bridges. either made outthere. also make it so less bottlenecks, this way, small gangs camp their own pipe in npc space, and there is too much area to cover every way out to 00, also, no cynos in this npc 00, everything is risk, and small gangs can get away from a big group coming to corner them, this would fix 00 more then moongoo, goons already have enough to pay for sov for years when controlling the market of it anyway, powerblocks will be around for years, even if you take out moongoo completely ( which should have happened years ago)
Avatar
Oh look. A member of one of the organizations that controls most of the Tech moons is saying that the monopoly should stay. Go figure, right?
Avatar
If a small alliance or corp can do something, Goonswarm can do it better organized, and with more people.Or, we can just wait until someone else towers the moons, and come bash them in (scouting a a system for POSes is way faster than moon scanning the whole system).
Avatar
Don't put words in my mouth.
Avatar
Perhaps depleting and respawning in other moons isn't an ideal solution, however the current mechanics are utter shit and something needs to be done.
Avatar
Let me tell you why tech should stay where it is....Seriously, it should float around, the volume of moongoo left in a moon should not be deterministically predetermined, but randomized at every iteration, and it should not be apparent through scanning how much kick a moon has left in it.Also, if that happens, be ready for t2 prices going up
Avatar
Andski, never go full retard. Jeez, your arguments are so thin it's not even funny. Get help.
Avatar
Post your costs for running your incursion....
Avatar
Nowhere in the article did I say "tech is fine lol." The point of the article is that moongoo depletion/rotation is a stupid fucking idea and a terrible solution that doesn't solve the root of the problem.
Avatar
Speaking of assumptions; You assume that every character in an alliance/coalition is an active pilot and not an alt or just inactive. You assume that every character in an alliance/coalition is interested in surveying moons constantly.
Avatar
Yea but under the current system is it worth it to have regions that are either worthless or ultravalued ?

Players have suggested that moon minerals should deplete and rotate between moons. This is an idea that is often rehashed on the official EVE forums and sometimes even on more nullsec-slanted forums such as Kugutsumen. The premise of this idea is that moon mining is widely considered a “safe” source of income, an assumption that makes little sense in an age when almost every nullsec organization can field enough dreadnoughts and titans to reinforce a large hardened tower in a single siege cycle. Moons have also been a primary conflict driver throughout the history of the game; it should not be necessary to point out every war that has been waged over Technetium moons since 2010.

The premise behind this idea is simple: moon minerals would “deplete” as they are mined until a point where the moon is entirely void of the mineral being mined and it respawns elsewhere. Ideally, somebody would discover that some other moon can be mined for that mineral and the moon would then be towered and mined. This would not actually encourage conflict over moons - in fact, this would discourage it.

The Scenario

I’ll paint a hypothetical scenario where moon depletion is implemented on Tranquility. Any given moon can now only put out 432,000 units (that is six months’ worth) of a given moon mineral as long as it exists on that moon. Once that deposit is entirely depleted, it respawns on one of the other 162,226 mineable moons in the game.

In this hypothetical scenario, Alliance A has been mining one of their moons for three months, and Alliance B would love to have that moon. Of course, by that point, they would only get three months of mileage out of that moon. Attacking a moon requires plenty of expensive hardware and even modest losses incurred by Alliance B would rapidly outstrip any financial gain from even the most valuable of moons. Likewise, Alliance A may be loathe to defend the moon, as the loss of the subcaps and triage carriers to do so may exceed the remaining value of the moon. It would be more convenient for them to scan their space and find a moon with a “fresh” or full spawn of that mineral instead of trying to hold on to a contested moon with only half of its remaining resources.

A common argument proponents of depletion make is that this would diminish the power of large blocs. Nothing could be further from the truth. Large blocs, with deeper manpower pools, would be able to rapidly scan entire regions, while smaller entities such as Pandemic Legion or Nulli Secunda would be at a disadvantage.

In this specific scenario, all currently mined moons would have a lifetime of six months after downtime on patch day. This means that moon minerals will have a significant increase in price as that time approaches. Patch speculation starts the moment that the devblog is posted, if not sooner. A significant and permanent increase in T2 prices would be very likely. Post patch, the constantly shifting supply means that the new market never matures. Bottlenecks appear and vanish as moons respawn in more or less trafficked places, and CCP, unable to count on a predictable rate of production, loses any ability to regulate the market whatsoever.

On Scanning

Scanning is a tedious process; with the exception of the Prowler, blockade runners are not suitable for this task. It is not possible to scan moons on Singularity and use that data on Tranquility as the mineral compositions of moons are shuffled. The data is not made available through the data dump - sites such as DOTLAN depend on user-submitted data, which is inherently unreliable. The player must fire a probe into each moon and wait as the results return after anywhere from 5 minutes (with Gaze probes, which require Survey V and Astrometrics V) to 40 minutes with Quest probes. The player must stay in that system and in space until the results are returned.

Scanning is not an exciting activity, and this scenario would force players to conduct large-scale moon scanning every six months. This is also the only time that there would be a chance of anything resembling fights over moons, as moons will be less desirable until the next mass-respawn period.

In Conclusion

Moongoo depletion would not do anything to encourage conflict over moons. Contrary to claims made by its proponents, this would do nothing to unseat power blocs as opposed to further empowering them by virtue of their manpower advantage. The economic effects would not be isolated and would ultimately be detrimental to the player base as a whole.

[name_1]
I write and proofread for TM.com. My focus is largely on EVE's new player experience and nullsec-related topics. If you wish to contact me, my Twitter account is @EVEAndski.