For the best experience use full HD.

Monday, January 23, 2012

I must be blind to have missed this PI change.

World Shaping
The storage capacity on all Planetary Interaction storage pins (sic) has been increased from 5000m3 to 12000m3 so that it may better compete with the space port.
This is really no help at all in hi-sec where the real issue isn't storage but link distances gobbling up power. On one of my gas worlds, the average distance from my extractors to the space ports (placed as close as I can get them) is approximately 1200 kilometers. On a barren world, with side-by-side modules done the exact same way, the distance is approximately 30 kilometers. I've never bought the logic that just because the planet is larger the distance between modules must be proportionally larger. That's just bad logic but that's the way it works.

Changing from space ports to storage facilities won't help in hi-sec. Here is a comparison between that same gas giant with and without spaceports (one must be maintained for launches of course:)
All Space Ports
Only One Space Port
As you can see, the limiting factor in both instances is power grid, not capacitor, and certainly not storage capacity. 10k cubic meters per extractor is more than adequate. I've only come close to filling a space port on one hot spot - ever. Insufficient power is always the limiting factor.

So why has CCP made this change? If the storage facilities are limited by power just like space ports, and large radius planets still require a space port per extractor, why waste time on this seemingly inconsequential change?

Well, my answer to that question is CCP favors null-sec and wormhole carebearing over high-sec carebearing. To me it's as plain as the three letters in their company logo. They are the only ones who will benefit from this in any significant way. I have it on good authority (a friend who carebears in null-sec) that the problem there is that planets produce too much. If you don't move resources off every few hours or invest in lots and lots of storage you won't maximize profit. You may as well PI in hi-sec. Adding space ports to hold all the resources these planets produce is a 900,000 ISK per space port proposition. Having a storage facility to replace them saves 650,000 ISK apiece. That's substantial and goes straight to the operation's bottom line.

It's just one more example on how hi-sec industrialists get dumped on because we don't fit CCPs vision of what capsuleers should be. We are the bread and butter of their subscription base. After all, 67% of 5 million plus SP characters are in hi-sec by CCP Diagoras' own admission
Yet, because "there is no risk," we constantly get the short end of the stick. Well, so be it. I carry on regardless of griefers and I'll carry on regardless of CCP "World Shaping."

But what really has me curious, is why CCP feels it always has to make game play more appealing to those without the hi-sec carebear mindset. They are not the majority of the subscription base? It's like they're afraid the game will evaporate without those other types of players. Could it? Without them would EVE become so boring that no one would want to play? Hardly; we'd still have griefers, pirates and ninja salvagers to spice up out day. So why does CCP do it?

Fly Careful.


  1. It's a fix to the fact you can get better power : m3 of storage from a spaceport than the actual storage unit; which meant only idiots / noobs used storage units. This affected highsec and 0.0 alike. How you turned this into "CCP hates carebears" is beyond me.

    Next time you blog, try to get a better source than "someone I know in null said"

    1. You read wrong. It's most definitely not about "CCP hates carebears." I specifically said, "hi-sec carebears." I also never used the word "hate." I used the word "favors," which has the connotation of meaning they like them more. However, affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy. Just because CCP favors null-sec carebears does not automatically mean they hate hi-sec carebears. To assume they do is specious.

      My friends will always remain safely anonymous - just like your handle is. (I get the distinct feeling you don't like to share.) Regardless, the output of null-sec planets is a well known fact and handling the resources problematic. You can look that up if you like. It'll still be true later. But thanks for confirming a source on such a well known fact isn't actually needed. I'll be sure to leave it off next time.

  2. To be fair to CCP, they aren't really favouring low- and null-sec PI as much as making it less painful, albeit in a way that doesn't meaningfully change high-sec PI. They already favour non-high-sec PI in the way they provide richer resources on the planets in those systems. This recent change is just to make that richness less of a hassle to harvest, which is probably entirely fair.

    I don't think I can complain that CCP are favouring non-w-space capsuleers because of the addition of compact chat channels, when we have unpopulated comms. It's merely a benefit that we won't see because of pre-existing circumstances.

    1. Less pain in EVE? That does not compute. *LOL*


Be civil, be responsible and most of all be kind. I will not tolerate poor form. There will be no James Hooks here. We are all better than that.

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