Well, what about "unsubbing"...

Ok, I get it.

What peopel are already doing in high sec, is why it would be impossible to "nerf" high sec, because they would do what they're already doing?


Yeah, that looks like extremely sound logic there.


So people don't grind the hell out of high sec lvl 4 missions in rediculously expensive ships because it's the equivilent of using an ATM machine that broke and keeps spitting out hundred dollar bills.

That's obviously not happening in high sec.

What?

When did anyone ever say anything about increasing mission difficulty?
What does reducing the amount missions pay, or thining NPC drops in high sec, or incrasing the taxes in high sec, have to do with anyone being able to do a mission?

Ok, but that still isn't a valid reason to extrapolate how to balance null from this experience. If you don't live in null, you're going to be making your suggestions based on errors like this anyone who lived in null would instantly spot.

Risk:reward and convenience are by no means incompatible concepts.

this is useless filibustering nonsense

capital ships, t2 ships, is there is no end to your wrongitude (you cannot make racial t2 ships out of only your racial r32)

plus racial towers are deliberately designed to have specific bonuses for specific tasks and you are not intended to use one tower for all tower uses

basically were we to change 0.0 so t2 ships did not exist and you created uniracial empires at cap level and above and decided that you should not be able to use multiple tower types, in that game transportation would not be needed

fortunately we do not play that dumb game

So our blue lists are a good thing for EVE Online?

I thought agreements was the main thing killing eve

Walking in Station and Ambulation on a whole is such a minor complaint at this point, who really cares?

Most of the people complaining about WiS are the same people that log in, mine ice or do missions in their High Security safety blanket, in their little one man corp with 0% tax rate- doing their part in the choir of people singing "I don't overly enjoy EVE because I have no impact on the game" complaining about literally anything on the forums waiting for their next ice harvester cycle to finish.

The only thing 'killing EVE' is CCP actually listening to those mongoloids.

We don't make much stuff, except stuff that ~game mechanics~ don't allow to be built in highsec. Like titans, our favorite item that needs to have its production reduced.

If titans could be built in highsec, doubtless they would be cheaper, more plentiful, and used for scams in Jita 4-4

Are you saying that because you can build a titan in null that the industry balance is fine?

How many people do you think actually do that?
How many peopel do you think it requirs to do that?
Do you think that is the only thing that gets built there?

And what about everyone that isn't doing that?

it is saturated, supercap nerfs have driven demand off a cliff

you can see this in crashed bpc prices for people who aren't able to check how many csaas have gone idle

E: I should add social interaction (diplomacy) in general is one of the challenges 0.0 industrialists are forced to grapple with that highsec industrialists can completely ignore. Yet the 0.0 industrialist gets virtually no advantage for doing so. If anything this reason alone is enough to warrant a nerf to the entirety of highsec's industrial capabilities.

congrats this is literally a defense of any possible feature set

I'll say it again the fact that nullsec industrialists require social interaction (diplomacy) to operate at all is a good reason to warrant a nerf to the entirety of highsec's industrial capabilities.

"game balance is a random requirement and the difficulty/risk/complexity of a task should have no bearing on its reward in a game"

this is gibberish and i see no need to make a case against an "argument" that is nothing but the nonsensical assertion that titans (usable anywhere in non-highsec and non-w-space, including npc 0.0 and lowsec) are balanced by conquerable 0.0 having poor industry

it is such gibbering insanity that there is no actual logic to attack, one can merely say it aloud and marvel and tell people to behold the best argument buzzy warstl could come up with to oppose the clear need for rebalancing industry and allow them to draw what conclusions they will

That was the original intent, back when their guns could blap subcaps, their DD was AoE, and they had drone bays.
Then they became horribly proliferated to the point where people were camping gates with titans.
Now titans are balanced by the fact that they're much less useful in any combat scenario except blapping carriers and dreadnoughts or structure shoots where you don't want to be forced to stay put for 5 minutes at a time.

you have to actually have a point for someone to dispute it

keep telling everyone how titans balance out nullsec industry

and how they should be used for pve

When alliances put up a half-assed fight against an invasion force and then just give up, that's a pretty obvious indication that space really isn't all that worth holding.

So no, it's not enough. Maybe you should try our shoes on for a change before you start telling us what the problem is.

Edit:
Had I been CCP, I'd have put the "top ISK" goal in low sec and not in hi sec or null sec. That would give safety and ability to casual play as a goal for hi sec, empire building to null sec, "own home" to WH and ISK making to low sec, that is a fair distribution of goals.

That's backwards. Surely it ought to be

"You risk losing that space, but your own space is greatly superior to NPC space"

this is utterly stupefyingly wrong: traditional linear games are the ones that can best allow unbalanced gameplay

it is multiplayer competitive games where players play against each other that game balance is at its most important

i don't know if you could have been more wrong without actually being Buzzy Warstl

Who's saying things need to be restricted?

And are you really saying that people won't build T1 items in high sec if the stations cost more to use, lines were reduced slightly, and max refine rate was reduced?

Because that would be silly.

Can you build things significantly cheaper in a PoS?
Can you put the things your PoS builds on the market from your PoS?

Do you think there is some sort of "progression" expected as an industrialist. Like doing the next raid in another MMO, do you think that as an industrialist you're ultimately expected to end up building titans? EVE doesn't work that way for me.

Fine, how about remove T2 production from NPC stations. In order to do any T2 and up production you have to do it in a player run structure.

Don't touch slots.
Don't touch refine rates.
Do nothing but remove T2 production from high sec NPC stations.

Quite honestly that's what it comes down to, T2 production. T2 production is the only the only form of "progression" for an industrialist. Cap production up is for those people that want to specialize in something that requires more teamwork to do. T2 production is what every single industrialist should be working towards doing.

And every single character that is not in an NPC corp, working from high sec NPC stations, is at a disadvantage when it comes to T2 production.

I do not care if it's cheaper to do it in high sec. I only care that it's cheapest to do it in an undeccable corporation, working out of a station that you can't lose access too. If high sec is the cheapest place to do T2 production, it should require a player run structure.

The ideas I support would be good for everyone. To be the "best" you would only have to join a player run corp, but you would still be able to make craptons of ISK doing in an NPC station, as a member of an NPC corp.

Removing T2 production from NPC stations would be horrible.

I guess that's what I get for being a smart ass.

You guys do understand that that would mean you can only do T2 production while in a corp that can be wardecced, from a PoS in high sec, or in a station in a system where there is no CONCORD?

That sounds better to you than just reducing the refine rates in NPC stations, lowing the number of available lines in a station, and incresing line costs in NPC stations.

You think all of that would be harder for the NPC corp guy then losing the ability to produce T2 items?



I really am impressed.

Nothing honestly.

Sounds perfect to me.


It sounds more extreme to me than just changing the stations a little.
I would expect people to be much more apposd to not being able to do T2 production in an NPC station.

I was under the impression that it was possible to get higher refine rates in High sec stations, with just skills, than is possible in null sec.

Yes, but I thought that without ever increasing standing that you could get better refine rates in some stations in high sec than in null, just by traing the proper skills up.

Also,
Isn't it possible that through standing, and by refining in certian stations in high sec, that you can get perfect refine rates WITHOUT training all the proper skills to 5?

Regardless of how they fix it, it needs to be fixed.

I can not say that being a null industrialist feels rewarding.
I feel like I've assumed more risk, and a lot more effort for no reward.

don't waste your time with that Buzzy guy, he doesn't understand that he doesn't know enough about the subject to form an opinion, let alone offer one (that's the guy who didn't know the difference between officer stuff and deadspace stuff till we told him, or that military systems upgrades didn't' do all these crazy things they thought they did).

I'm 38, so i doubt it.

But nullseccers all say highsec needs to be nerfed. THEY ALL LIVE IN NULLSEC! CONSPIRACY!

Wait, I thought we were saving new players?

Now we're saving players who need solo content in an MMO AND need that content to be competitive with group content?

Just let us know when the goalposts are gonna stop so we can begin then.

Nobody's saying they are.

CCP never told us.

And who cares. Why does this move to null sec stuff keep popping up, why do people like yo cling to it like they do the "play style" crap.

No on (well, almost no one) really cares where anyone plays.

Wrong, EVE is one game, everything you do can affect everyone else clear across the star map. The isk I make in incursions is the same kind of thing as the isk I make in null sec anomalies, it affects YOU the same way (by making every isk in your wallet worth a bit less).

High Sec Only folks generally can't understand that, which is why many of them keep saying "just buff null". Not only do they not get the idea that it's been done before and was bad, they don't get home much THEY themselves would be screwed if that were to happen (on a scale where null sec minded people could live only there and pull all their high sec alts out of high sec).

They fact that some of you people need to fall back on the "you're just evil null sec people who want me to move there so you can shoot me" fallacy says a lot about the positions you hold and the way you think. No one much gives a damn where you play.

Hisec was meant to be a casual alternative for casual players, not a casual alternative for multi-accounting turbonerds. If anything, reducing the competitiveness of hisec content is a boon to actual casual players, as their favorite content isn't being dominated by the alts of the all-but-casual players currently gobbling content made for them.

Because he conveniently ignores the fact that eve online is and always has been advertised as an always-on pvp game.

If you want to play a single player game, why not play X3 or something?

It boggles my mind how much of a non-sequitur this post is. Is english not your first language?

Way to miss the point. The point is you have to have some sort of social interaction (diplomacy) to be successful in lower sec status areas but do not in highsec. Yet for some unknown reason highsec industrial capabilities should not be nerfed even though it requires no social interaction, (diplomacy) in fact people are touting that highsec industrial activity should be more rewarding. This is analogous to saying solo play should be more rewarding than group play in an MMO which is not true at all. Once again CCP has acknowledged this when they say people who find corporations (social groups) they like are far more likely to stay in EVE than people who do not find corporations (social groups) they like.

YES!

Why is that a hard concept to grasp? In a game about people and conflict, the people who are better at making friends and fighting people when, the people who are worse at those things lose.

This is the natural order of any game, if you can't grasp the strategies and mechanics of chess, you should lose every chess match you attempt. If you hand/eye coordination sucks, you should lose every ping pong game you play etc etc.

So you think you should be able to suck at the core things a sandbox MMO requires and still get the same rewards as people who don't suck at it? What kind of communist land do you come from?

But this is not really about forcing dedicated highsec players into nullsec. This is about getting nullsec players to move their highsec alts to nullsec, rather then just leaving a PvP character who only logs in to "blob". that is the dirty secret behind why nullsec is so empty, and the small gang PvP'ers cry that they can't find anything but a few ratters to try and shoot at.

I also believe that being a sandbox game should mean that any style of game play should be possible.

But when one looks at the comparative advantage of the security regions, highsec wins on way too many counts. A good chunk of that 70% or so players in highsec are the alts of nullsec players. Missions are infinitely available. It has the best industry infrastructure. Most of the ore is on par with nullsec in terms of isk/hr. And add relative safety to all that, thanks to Concord. This means that, while any style of play is possible, it is often most rewarding in highsec for many reasons. Less loss, better o

CCP has made so many facets of highsec both good and easy that is does in effect "force" players to go there and stay there.

As for "you aren't reaping them either" WTf are you talking about?

I don't want to say anything about this since I am 75% agreeing with all what GS and other null players want.

But there's one thing that caught my eye. In one of the NPC nullsec stations I go sometimes (5J) the refine is 50%.
So if somebody nerfs hi sec to null sec levels, the only ones really affected are those without the refining skills. Aka Malcanis Law...

Its like this: nobody wants all the highsec bears to come to null, I dont know how that myth gets perpetuated. Stay right where you are at. Moongoo is broke, nerf it, fix it, fix the whole T2 production chain so that we dont have to rely on moons to support our alliance.

Take away moongoo, allow us to develop our space in a meaningful way and contribute to the health of the alliance from the line-member grunt level on up, rather than capturing all kinds of moons. We dont want moongoo AND this bottom up increase, we been saying moongoo is broke for years. Fix it and give us bottom-up income.

So you're saying that you'd be quite happy for hi-sec industry to face the same restrictions that nullsec industry does?

OK let's start with only 1 station per system

Are you still happy?

Why indeed aren't the people moving from high sec?
Maybe becuse the one measurable point of "winning" in EVE that every person playing it has, is that stupid number in your wallet.

Let's be realistic for a moment.
Almost all of us are playing to make silly virtual wealth. It's the one thing we have to really focus on because we don't have to grind levels or gear, so we measure our success by ISK. Some do it otherways, like killboard, but that's not what the majority of us are measuring our success by.

We play for ISK.
Whatever reason you initially came to EVE for, in the end you will be playing for ISK.
When the best place for ISK is high sec, why would people leave, indeed.

Find us a better quantifiable metric and we'll be happy to use it until then all we have is isk/hr.

No, no. He doesn't care about isk/hour, so he's not going to care when hisec income gets nerfed. Problem solved.

Okay so you have another metric that tells us nothing about reward. It tells us how many accounts are in the game and that just hints at the overall size of EVE but not about the reward disparity across the sec areas. I'd like to have proper metrics for "fun" but its way to subjective you can't count and compare how much "fun" there is. Being able to count and compare are two crucial factors to a quantifiable metric. Hence why isk/hr is the best metric we have, once again if you have a better metric please tell us.

We aren't arguing over "sandbox game" you're trying to tell me why isk/hr is a bad metric for reward. So far all you've got is because of that metric it makes me a sad, terrible person IRL. Now I'll say it again to you, if you have a better quantifiable metric for reward please let us know.

I'll keep it in simple terms here so don't go getting pedantic on me, give us something easily measured, counted, and compared.

Yet the reward for highsec industry is still higher than the reward for nullsec industry. The argument does not fall flat. The risk is in highsec is zero yet the risk in nullsec is high. Prices rising are perfectly fine, prices going up do not automatically mean inflation is the cause. Once again someone trots out the "if highsec is nerfed people will quit" argument which has been defeated way too many times in this thread for me to get into it again so I'm going to leave it with a flat, you are wrong.

Alright smart one tell me how I am to compare reward in a meaningful way then without some quantifiable metric? I'll answer that for you, you can't. So do you have a better quantifiable metric, if not then go away or find some other point to argue.

The cry is an attempt to balance highsec risk:reward and bring it inline with the rest of the game. Way to miss out on the last 57 pages of thread.

Okay this is a big "stop trying to force people into nullsec" the OP answers this thankfully:

13) This is just about some players trying to force everyone to play like them.

- It really isnGÇÖt, diversity in the game is obviously really important, the vast majority of players specialise and that is a good thing. This is about balancing the regions of the game.

So now we change to carrier ratting. Yeah CCP doesn't want that its been said in a dev blog before. Next waffle please.

And CCP have stated they want to do away with it.

The people that design and make the game state that they want to take the game in a certain direction. You can't brush that off they are literally in charge of where the game goes.

There is a big difference between us saying something and CCP saying something. None of us have argued for a nullsec reward nerf. That attention span needs a little work.

Like npc nullsec or lowsec, where most invasions actually base from, even ones between neighboring established sov holders.

Whenever someone says "you want to make it so highsec industrialists can't compete" they mean "you want to make it so nullsec industrialists can compete with us! **** THE SKY IS FALLING WE HAVE TO EVACUATE"

Point 8 of the OP eloquently answers this:

8) High Sec is the empire and null is the wildlands, so the industry should be in High.

- Actually there are very stable empires in null built by the hard work of many people and yet they cannot sustain a fraction of the industry that is handed, for free, to High Sec. This is a great detriment to the game and a bad message to future players, GÇ£donGÇÖt work hard, you canGÇÖt do better than staying in the system you started inGÇ¥.

- For Risk and Reward to balance an area that is safe should be low value, and a dangerous area should be high value, having a high value safe area distorts everything and spoils a fundamental mechanic of the game, no wonder 71% of people live in High Sec.

You don't mean players right you mean in the story people who work as refining manager number 04786?

If it's a story can't we say it's all automated and robotic? Anyone who can make a jump bridge can make an automated refinery.

You're seriously asking why hi-sec shouldn't be the best space and in the same breath calling 0.0ers entitled?

OK.

Allow me to.assist your contemplation. The problem is caused by your strawman attempts to conflate "production is more efficient in 0.0" with "production is only possible in 0.0".

So your argument is:

"All the best facilities are in hisec, so not surprisingly that's where most of the players are, therefore all the best facilities should be in hi-sec"

With circular reasoning like that, you should be in the merry-go-round business.

Hey let's apply your logic to ship balancing too

"Dramiels are far more powerful than any other frigate, therefore everyone is flying Dramiels, therefore CCP should buff Dramiels"

But yeah what's actually going to happen is that hi-sec is going to get the same treatment that the Dramiel got this year, and it'll be good but not the best at everything. Because a game with only 1 viable choice to make is a bad game.

Except in Buzzy Warstl Land, I guess.

So why should players be unable to build a better civilisation than NPCs?

So, Buddy: Why shouldn't players be able to build a better civilisation than NPCs? Are you able to answer this question?

So what is is what should be? EVE is a perfect, unchangable monolith that can't be altered in anyway from its original flawless conception?

Also, from where I'm sitting, EVE's lore and design seems to be predicated on the idea that capsuleers are virtually gods compared to those who aren't, and that CCP has been slowly but surely removing NPC monopolies for half a decade. Why should they stop now? What on earth makes you think they will?

EDIT: And your answer isn't an answer. It boils don't to "players shouldn't be able to build a better empire than the NPC because players can't build a better empire than the NPCs".

WHY shouldn't they be able to?

NPC monopolies are the way of the future. Lay down arms or CONCORD will ~deal with~ you.

Your barbarism will not be tolerated.

It's true you should answer that question Malcanis asked that other poster. I don't think you can answer it well.

Avoiding the question isn't an answer, it's what people looking for ways out do.

No one is (seriously) suggesting that availability of basic features should be removed from hi-sec.

All we're asking is that some of them be vaible in 0.0 too.

You realise that T1 ships (capital ships are T1, you may recall) make up 90% or more of the ships used in 0.0. Battlecruisers. Battleships. Carriers. Dreadnaughts. All T1.

I think you'll find that not only would alliances be happy to dedicate most of their production facility to T1, they'll insist on being able to do so.

Counterpoint: every game that has tried to copy the WoW model has crashed and burned hard.

Everyone remember Fozzie's infamous Heavy Missile Nerf? The bottom line is that when the ships bonused to heavy missiles only had 5% stat increases, there literally was nothing that could be done to bring missiles into proper scale with the other weapons systems without reducing the base missile stats, and restoring that value using higher ship bonuses. It was a necessary step because it increased the flexibility with which variables could be adjusted.

High sec industry suffers the same up-against-a-wall issue of being one of the places you can get the best refines and build times in the game. This literally hamstrings developers to tackle economic issues in several key ways, and by arbitrarily insisting that highsec variables can't be made any lower than they stand today (even if others are increased) some players here are willing to selfishly allow stubborn adherence to a status quo stand in the way of allowing the design teams to solve problems in an innovative, effective, and elegant fashion throughout the next set of expansion releases.

[ I am not one of those players, just to clear up the question of where I personally stand on this. ]

EVE players are hardworking, cunning, and resilient - and everyone has a price point (or fun factor) that will successfully bait them into taking risks. There is a depressing lack of progression (and lack of adventure) baked into the current industrial core of the game that desperately needs a kickstart. If CCP can deliver and make the art of making things fun as hell - and more lucrative than ever for those that learn to live on the edge, it will bring them more long-term interest than anything they might risk from those that would follow through and quit just because their game changed.

Some are betting on the scared carebears who may actually quit. As for me, I'm betting on the smart carebears who are more than capable of computing loss percentages into their profit calculators and making gameplay choices that are pocketbook-friendly. even if they dislike PvP.

Hey I debunked that Baltec1 invented fallacy 3-4 times in the last weeks, you may as well find those references instead of going cassette playback mode.

You're equivocating, here. The point is the limit is still stupid.

How does that make any sense?

Yeah about those "empires"...

And what game was that?

Ah i get it, so the game doesn't exist. Didn't think so, thanks for confirming.

Thats a dumb point because EVE takes place on a single sharded server where the different sec statuses all effect each other. I'm not sure if you knew that before, but hey now you do.

The real risk is that you lose control of your station from an enemy and have billions worth of ships locked out. No rsk of that happening in NPC 0.0. This is why many sov null alliances often stockpile their assets in the relatively low-risk NPC 0.0 stations/lowsec.

hth

delve 2012 lol

No it wouldn't.

again, how is that an added risk?

as a red I no longer have to care about defending stations, assets or timers because there's no way i can be kicked out of my space (and i've been kicked from a lot of space) - the risk involved in deploying or taking space is removed.

\o/ everywhere is losec!

Except for the part where we have to pay for stations to be built!

And there are no consequences for losing that fight beyond the ship losses.

I don't know what game you're playing, but it's not sov war in EVE.