congrats this is literally a defense of any possible feature set

"You used a word incorrectly, therefore your entire argument is literally wrong."

1)If you nerf high sec I wonGÇÖt be able to play anymore!

-Missioning and MIning isn't super exciting. The pay out is exciting, you wanna take that away from us?

2)"Null players" just want to kill us all, thatGÇÖs the only reason they bring up a nerf.

-Bull crap argument, Yes they would shoot anyone entering their space.

- Really? I think are division between players, Hi sec players don't want to deal with the drama of null.


3)Null is too dangerous, anyone who goes there getGÇÖs shot immediately.

-What if I want to play solo? Why do I have to make friends? And yes in most cases you will get shot.

4)Null is too safe, itGÇÖs just a sea of blues and I canGÇÖt get access to it.

-So is Hi sec? So why should I leave Hi sec? cause you are jealous of my profit?

5)Nobody could ever mine/mission in low, they would be instantly killed by pirates.

-Yes and while we are at it, lets tank mining ships and put warp stabs on them to reduce the mining yield. So its the same if Hi sec got the nerf.

6)I pay my subscription so I should be able to play however I want, itGÇÖs a SANDBOX.

-Damaging how exactly?

7)If High Sec were nerfed ship costs would increase massively and that is bad.

-If miners have to mine longer for the same amount of minerals, prices of ore would go up, and thus the ship cost.

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

-They don't build Cadillacs and land rovers in Afghanistan, just saying.

don't even care to go on.

1) So if the isk payout is the best thing about missions could we buff them with some kind of gold medals? That can't be spent on anything but you can collect them for missioning, maybe there should be a set of achievements you can get (do a mission in every type of ship, use only one gun, use only drones etc). Would that make them worth doing without having economic incentive?

Either every goon uses literally incorrectly, or Mittani has a lot of alts.

No, you see, that doesn't work. They need to be able to make isk so that they can buy ships and modules to make isk faster to buy ships and modules to make isk faster to buy ships and modules to make isk faster to buy ships and modules to make isk faster to buy ships and modules to make isk faster to buy ships and modules to make isk faster to buy ships and modules to make isk faster to buy ships and modules to make isk faster to buy ships and modules to make isk faster to buy ships and modules to make isk faster to buy ships and modules to make isk faster to buy ships and modules to make isk faster to buy ships and modules to make isk faster to buy ships and modules to make isk faster to buy ships and modules to make isk faster...

And maybe monocles?

Ironically a good nerf would keep these people playing for longer as the arbitrary mountain would be higher.

People love medals, people love shiny.

Right here is, however, where you cross the line from reasoned argument to spoiled brat.

What you did to have what you do has no bearing on what others should have and what is in the best interests of the game as a whole.

Grow up already.

It's only an insistence that you have a better reason for it that "I worked hard for what I have, why to they get something shiny?!"

Actually using the word "literally" as an intensifier has a long and established history going back to Mark Twain who wrote "Tom Sawyer was literally rolling in wealth".

its basically you reject the very concept of game balance

well good luck with that

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

Titans are balanced by their cost.

Part of the cost is crap industry in the systems that can build them.

Sounds balanced to me, if you think it's not make a case for that.

Titans are balanced by their cost.

The problem is that, to solve that, you have to nerf highsec. Simply buffing low and null so that, at worst, they are as good as the best highsec systems would wreak havoc with the economy.

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.

I don't believe that hisec must necessarily be nerfed in order for a buff to nullsec to be possible without wreaking havoc with the economy. Simply allowing player-owned facilities to be as effective and efficient as NPC facilities (refineries in particular) would be a huge buff to nullsec without damaging hisec at all.

It's already the case that, in high sec:

You can't source the materials required to build basically anything via gathering, as there are no native sources of Zydrine.
Public Material Research slots are universally locked up for 15 days in advance (and this extends right down to the quietest parts of low sec). Other sorts of slot are perpetually unavailable on a system-by-system basis.

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

it would go a long way, yes, which is why i focus a lot on those in my article about how to fix 0.0 industry. merely having perfect refines in a pos would be amazing.

however GǪ it doesn't fix basic competitive issues: if I can make a pos have perfect refines I'm still paying orders of magnitude more in slot costs (fuel costs >>>>>>> slot costs) and the entire job can be destroyed rather than being built in absolute safety creating a large risk premium (you can never do anything to a job installed in a station, a job in a destroyed pos is gone)

Can't argue with that logic, because you're just attacking me instead of disputing my point.