Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |

ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
22
|
Posted - 2012.12.21 02:28:00 -
[1] - Quote
Taria Katelo wrote:didnt read the huge wall of text you posted because if someone needs so many words to explain his opinion, then he is wrong anyways. now to your TL;DR. if you give stats, at least post from where you made them up. because 71% of players in highsec can just as well mean that most people just have their alts stationed in highsec.
and just because many ppl live in highsec it doesnt mean that something is wrong with highsec. you maybe should think the other way around. if there are so few ppl in nullsec although there are a ton of systems, then maybe something is wrong with nullsec. like being able to control huge a amount of systems just with supers while noone has to even live there. power projection in 0.0 is the problem. You and people like you are a cancer on this game.
Go play some brainless console shooter or something and leave EVE to the people who want to play EVE and not the hisec baby game. |

ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
32
|
Posted - 2012.12.21 18:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:E: I'll add to this. You still refuse to counter my argument that highsec is warranted a nerf because the other sec status areas require social interaction (diploamcy) in order to operate. You still refuse to explain why solo play should be more rewarding than group play. 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? |

ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
34
|
Posted - 2012.12.21 18:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
Buzzy Warstl wrote:ihcn wrote:La Nariz wrote:E: I'll add to this. You still refuse to counter my argument that highsec is warranted a nerf because the other sec status areas require social interaction (diploamcy) in order to operate. You still refuse to explain why solo play should be more rewarding than group play. 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? If you undock anywhere you can be shot, even in highsec. Even if you play by the rules. If you pay attention to the rules and intel sources appropriate to the portion of the game you are playing in you are unlikely to be a victim there, and are likely to be able to find nice targets. Perhaps you just don't understand how the rules work in highsec well enough? Or perhaps you think that too many people you would like to be easy targets do understand the rules? It boggles my mind how much of a non-sequitur this post is. Is english not your first language? |

ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
35
|
Posted - 2012.12.21 19:08:00 -
[4] - Quote
Buzzy Warstl wrote:ihcn wrote:Buzzy Warstl wrote:ihcn wrote:La Nariz wrote:E: I'll add to this. You still refuse to counter my argument that highsec is warranted a nerf because the other sec status areas require social interaction (diploamcy) in order to operate. You still refuse to explain why solo play should be more rewarding than group play. 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? If you undock anywhere you can be shot, even in highsec. Even if you play by the rules. If you pay attention to the rules and intel sources appropriate to the portion of the game you are playing in you are unlikely to be a victim there, and are likely to be able to find nice targets. Perhaps you just don't understand how the rules work in highsec well enough? Or perhaps you think that too many people you would like to be easy targets do understand the rules? It boggles my mind how much of a non-sequitur this post is. Is english not your first language? It apparently isn't yours. You complained about highsec being "single player". I carefully, and with mostly small words, explained to you how it isn't. Maybe I used too many big words. I didn't say it is now, although it's close. There are plenty of people who want it to be though. I had a discussion with someone a few days ago who advocated literally banning all pvp encounters from hisec. People like that want a single player game. |

ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
38
|
Posted - 2012.12.22 04:55:00 -
[5] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:No amount of buffing nullsec will give nullsec manufacture advantages over any other area of space. As you yourself have admitted there is an abundance of invulnerable slots and perfect refine. The cost of slots is negligible to the point that using open public ones when available and reserving POS space for types you cannot gain easy access to is the norm.
Since POS's cost to operate and outpost have great costs to build and upgrade this means that even if manufacturing bandwidth were increased there is no compensation for the increased risk, including individual risk in space during logistics and risks involving potential eviction from where your facilities are located or their destruction, and large upfront and/or recurring cost involved in creating and maintaining facilities.
Nullsec needs a place to work up from and so long as inconsequential facility costs and perfect refine keeps highsec at the theoretical top nullsec has no where to go and no real draw. You're never going to drive this home. Some people just think they should be able to play the game with zero risk and be competitive with people who are laying everything on the line. |

ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
38
|
Posted - 2012.12.22 04:58:00 -
[6] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Tyberius Franklin.
My point wasn't that buffing Nullsec industry would allow it to directly compete at perfect isk ratio's.
My point was that the Buffs than can be done should be done before any Nerfs to High Sec Industry. So as to actually see how great an effect they have. It's no good throwing Nerfs at High Sec industry if the Null Sec Industry is incapable of taking up the slack regardless of what people want to do. And it's a very risky idea to change loads of things at once on a core system like manufacturing, since every extra thing you change scales exponentially the number of places where you can break the balance of the game. So the changes should be done seperately. I like how you snuck in the implication that nerfing manufacturing in hisec means nobody will manufacture in hisec. That's not true. As long as manufacturing things in a hisec station is free of risk, people will always do it. |

ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
44
|
Posted - 2012.12.22 16:51:00 -
[7] - Quote
Randolph Rothstein wrote:i still dont understand whats wrong with no risk industry in high sec Every other activity in the game is surrounded with risk vs reward decisions. "if i do x, i'll get more reward, but it's more risky".
mining and manufacturing don't have these decisions |

ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
44
|
Posted - 2012.12.22 16:53:00 -
[8] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:It also helps distinguish the smart from the dumb, the smart mission runner will be highly rewarded while the dumb one won't. You're never going to make any headway trying to sell this idea to dumb people. Why would they want changes that would make the game harder for them? |

ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
70
|
Posted - 2012.12.25 05:16:00 -
[9] - Quote
POKER ALICE wrote:Quote:I'd agree with you, if you build whatever it is you want to build and protect it you should get some benefit from it. You can do things like these as a small group or a large alliance. The thing that should not happen is it should not all be handed to you like it is currently in highsec. Some of what you say makes sense. I can see that someone in null having to actively defend their assets should be able to reason that effort against a reward that makes it worthwhile. As for the things I have being handed to me, I mine veld, plag, scord and omber. CCP doesnt do that for me. I run missions. Again, CCP does not do that for me. However, I suppose a tax would be fair enough to justify since I am doing it in Concord protected space. CCP gotta have their doughnuts I suppose. Beyond that however, I do not feel I owe null sec anything. CCP practically mies for you. With a mackinaw, if you choose the right rocks, you can turn your lasers on, go afk for 27 minutes, and come back to a full ore hold. I should know, I've done it myself.
I would be perfectly happy with keeping profits as high as they are now in hisec, if more pvp conflict points were added, and thus more risk was introduced. Removing can-flipping was fine if ccp thought the odds were stacked too far in the favor of the aggressor, but why didn't they replace it with something more fairly balanced? |

ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
82
|
Posted - 2012.12.26 19:08:00 -
[10] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Low sec would quickly replace high sec, most T2 production with good revenue is small sized and a blockade runner is enough to make a number of T2 mods at a time. WHs after low sec and before null sec.
At this point you'd be forced to demand T2 to become exclusive to "pure" null sec but then, the "center-periphery" EvE economy model will short circuit, as the periphery now is the center, and the center is a.... non center any more.
This is a slippery slope argument, which is a logical fallacy. Forcing t2 production into lowsec does not automatically mean everyone will start crying for t2 production to be pushed into nullsec.
Maybe a few would, but ccp is smart enough to avoid listening to vocal minorities (unless that vocal minority is crying for making hisec safer ).
I don't like the idea of arbitrary restrictions though, and I think forcing people to do most refining/production in hisec pos is good enough, while still allowing them to do it in stations with much greater overhead. |
|
|