The Providence Model of 0.0 Development

[Phred]

 By the same token, he says "we see no income from ratting", but of course they *do*, in the form of taxes and docking fees from the ratter's economic activity (as well as more minerals from their recycling of crap loot).

What taxes would the ratters pay? Most ppl who rat in provi aren't in CVA. He has a very good point in that it's not really any benefit to CVA at all to upgrade the ratting in their systems if their own members don't rat.

[Pezzle]

CVA pilots do rat, but that does not pay for sov upkeep.  As for the wormhole comments?  I do not think it is a serious threat, simply something we would not upgrade because it does increase risks and WE will not benefit greatly from it.  If we raise the fees less people come.  Many already haul all salvage to empire.

Remember we have to compete with level 4 missions.  In a crowded and poor region that can be difficult.  The bottom line is, we are concerned about the costs.  No information on costs has been released.  Our model depends on income OUTSIDE Providence.  I am sure we will survive, it simply becomes frustrating when you feel ignored again.

[Goumindong]

Some of what he says is just wrong.  With only a couple of dozen people basing themselves from the Zoo (Z-UZZN), no docking fees, nearly constant warfare and siege, a sizable fuel bill for garrison POS, and giving 40% to the alliance, the return on the Zoo was 8-10% per month.  Unless competition has pushed the refining tax rate in Providence down to 2% or less (and if it had, people wouldn't be compressing and hauling their ore to Empire), there's no way they aren't seeing a significant return.  By the same token, he says "we see no income from ratting", but of course they *do*, in the form of taxes and docking fees from the ratter's economic activity (as well as more minerals from their recycling of crap loot).

To be fair, he was not saying there was no difference, just that it was small. This may be justified if the cross elasticities are small or if that income was a negligible portion of their income. Though he certainly miscalculates supply increase effects from loot [prices of goods to him will go down]

Really the question of upgrading seems pretty uncertain at this point, since CVA needs to be cognizant of "not being good enough to invade"

I've noticed that some very smart people just can't wrap their heads around "Emergent Systems".  It's a breakdown between two basic forms of intuitive thinking: Linear mathematics, and parallel procedural.  If you can't imagine what happens when lots of things are happening at once without trying to reduce it to a single linear process/narrative, you think directed emergence is bullshit that can't possibly work.  CCP seems to have been blessed with some people who are *very* good at parallel process thinking, and recruited more.

--Dave

Who is that directed at?

[Pezzle]

I am firmly in the camp of 'upgrades go poof on hostile takeover'

[Phildo]

The closest Jade may ever get to destructible outposts.

[IainC]

Perhaps CVA could be helped by taxes going to the sov holder rather than the player's corp (in conquerable space at least).

[Amarr HM]

Perhaps CVA could be helped by taxes going to the sov holder rather than the player's corp (in conquerable space at least).

I think this should definitely be looked at.

[Pezzle]

Dandy, and just how many years before that is looked at?

[IainC]

Dandy, and just how many years before that is looked at?

Vote for me and I'll push for that.

/stump

[Endie]

While that would have difficulties in implementation as a blanket change (ninja ratting in hostile space, for instance), the treaty system should definitely allow a propportion of the corp tax to go to the system-holding treaty partner.

[Pezzle]

Also very unmanageable for those who chose NRDS.  

I should clarify that.  It is possible it can be implemented in a way that does not require constant negotiations.  Perhaps a treaty office in an outpost.  Hit button, read terms, click accept.  If it requires the interaction of two parties it is unworkable.

[MahrinSkel]

I've noticed that some very smart people just can't wrap their heads around "Emergent Systems".  It's a breakdown between two basic forms of intuitive thinking: Linear mathematics, and parallel procedural.  If you can't imagine what happens when lots of things are happening at once without trying to reduce it to a single linear process/narrative, you think directed emergence is bullshit that can't possibly work.  CCP seems to have been blessed with some people who are *very* good at parallel process thinking, and recruited more.

--Dave

Who is that directed at?

More of a general observation over a lot of the objections.  They seem rooted in a linear analysis where the complainant imagines a narrative and uses that as an evidence the proposal won't work, without being able to wrap their head around how all the other things that will be happening at the same time will affect it.

--Dave

[IainC]

Also very unmanageable for those who chose NRDS.  

I should clarify that.  It is possible it can be implemented in a way that does not require constant negotiations.  Perhaps a treaty office in an outpost.  Hit button, read terms, click accept.  If it requires the interaction of two parties it is unworkable.

I wasn't talking about an optional system, I was talking about an automatic one. As I understand it CCP want to implement treaties that sound as though they will allow sov holders and interested parties to formalise terms for rent, taxes, standings etc. That's all on top of my suggestion which is simply that tax revenuegoes to the sov holder where the taxable economic activity happens and not the corp that the player belongs to. If I shoot rats in CVA space then CVA gets a cut of my bounties instead of my own corp. This adds value to NRDS space for the sov holders and encourages conflict over good ratting systems - if I'd rather rat in your space than in my own then either we should come to a friendly arrangement or we should have a fight about it. It could even work in Empire or NPC 0.0 although it doesn't have to. It could also be extended to include all taxable activities but, again that's not really necessary either.

[Pezzle]

More of a general observation over a lot of the objections.  They seem rooted in a linear analysis where the complainant imagines a narrative and uses that as an evidence the proposal won't work, without being able to wrap their head around how all the other things that will be happening at the same time will affect it.

--Dave

I do not think that is a fair assessment.  Plenty of people are asking how it will work, giving examples of how the player made systems work and asking for more details.  Of course this system can work, it probably will.  The "hey look at all this cool shit we are planning" press release style is irksome in a persistent world environment.  Giving details can only improve the quality of feedback. 

[Khaldun]

[art people just can't wrap their heads around "Emergent Systems".  It's a breakdown between two basic forms of intuitive thinking: Linear mathematics, and parallel procedural.  If you can't imagine what happens when lots of things are happening at once without trying to reduce it to a single linear process/narrative, you think directed emergence is bullshit that can't possibly work.  CCP seems to have been blessed with some people who are *very* good at parallel process thinking, and recruited more.

--Dave

Basically this is where a lot of MMOs go wrong before anybody writes even a single line of code, and especially where they go wrong in live management. CCP does seem to grasp that this is what it's all about, maybe better than even Blizzard does. (Blizzard spends a lot of time trying to damp down potentially emergent feedback loops in their product.)

If a virtual world could consistently demonstrate to people outside of it how directed emergence is persistently achievable, that could be a pretty significant contribution independent from whether it's fun or not. I'm convinced that it happens in Eve, but I'm not entirely sure that even the insiders who are ostensibly "directing" these processes have a clear bird's eye view of how it all comes together--in fact arguably, you can't have a bird's eye view of it if you're trying to direct it. The hardest thing of all with emergent thinking is to describe it to others after the fact, you almost have to experience it viscerally.

[dwindlehop]

Dandy, and just how many years before that is looked at?

Vote for me and I'll push for that.

/stump

This seems very busted. If I want to ninja rat, sov holders should bodily evict me, not raise their taxes so I slink away elsewhere.

[IainC]

They should evict youif they deem that you pose a security risk. In most of NBSI space that would be the case anyhow. For NRDS areas like Providence where, as already discussed, the sov holders want to encourage space-tourism, then it's cool to incentivise you shooting their rats.

[dwindlehop]

That's all on top of my suggestion which is simply that tax revenuegoes to the sov holder where the taxable economic activity happens and not the corp that the player belongs to. If I shoot rats in CVA space then CVA gets a cut of my bounties instead of my own corp. This adds value to NRDS space for the sov holders and encourages conflict over good ratting systems - if I'd rather rat in your space than in my own then either we should come to a friendly arrangement or we should have a fight about it.

What I'm trying to say is this is open to abuse by sov holders against hostiles. If CVA could get a cut of my bounties while I, a hostile, am in their space, then they can de facto prevent me from ratting in their space all without ever engaging me in a fight. This model is wrong.

I will grant you there is not a ton of risk of abuse in Providence specifically, but this mechanic could easily be abused in quite a few other regions. Geminate, for instance.

To put it in different terms, if system upgrades are determined by player activity, you can't create mechanics which passively discourage activity by hostiles. Discouragement of hostiles needs to be active, by friendly gangs. Or else we're back to the absentee landlord system of 0.0 sov again.

[MahrinSkel]

Who, in their right mind, goes into a hostile's space to rat?  Unless you're talking about "squatters", and there's not a lot of places left for them since JB's allowed the isolated high value systems to become conveniently reachable.

--Dave

[Phildo]

People who want to fight better rats or different types.  We get people from Providence in Delve and Querious occasionally.  Amarr Holymight and I used to occasionally rat in deep Catch when we lived in Providence, too.

[Amarr HM]

Aye Phil but FAT was owned by allies at the time and we had station access, not that it wasn't glut full of roaming hostiles I might add. It's simple to prevent abuse put a cap on the max amount of tax charged in a system say 10% or 20%. Other than that I think it's a good idea I can't see the ninja ratters making enough noise for it to be an obstacle in implementation.

[Goumindong]

Who, in their right mind, goes into a hostile's space to rat?  Unless you're talking about "squatters", and there's not a lot of places left for them since JB's allowed the isolated high value systems to become conveniently reachable.

--Dave

Officer/Faction ninja hunting is/was popular enough in Delve.

While that would have difficulties in implementation as a blanket change (ninja ratting in hostile space, for instance), the treaty system should definitely allow a propportion of the corp tax to go to the system-holding treaty partner.

There is no real difficulty in implementation. Rats in sovereign space are working against the current space holders. If you're shooting them, whether or not they're letting you, you're doing them a favor.

[Jayce]

I ninja ratted in Catch during a down cycle of the war.  I was blown up by a group of Providence holders, who camping a remote gate for some reason.