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.

The call isn't to nerf Highsec, the call is to make most of Nullsec actually worth a damn.

Nerfing HighSec more will only cause an exodus from the game. Might be good for some, but not so much for CCPs accountants. The ideology that nerfing one area to promote another hasn't worked, doing so even more still won't work.

It's from the fanfest 2012 state of the economy video which can be found here. You are right, maybe it would be fair to say "toons" rather than "players" when referring to where people live. However every toon has a player behind it, even if that player has many toons.

Most of null space is borderline useless and should really be no less profitable than the best system in highsec.

Nerfing HighSec more will only cause an exodus from the game.

The ideology that nerfing one area to promote another hasn't worked, doing so even more still won't work.

The call isn't to nerf Highsec, the call is to make most of Nullsec actually worth a damn.

The ideology that nerfing one area to promote another hasn't worked, doing so even more still won't work.

As luck would have it, that is not the ideology. The idea is to nerf highsec so that other areas can at the same time be made relatively more attractive without breaking things.

lol, ok that's absurd,

In relation to what it's already been through.

Same idea different wording.

There are a number of threads on this topic that have been locked on this forum.

This one so far as stayed civil, as such I'll leave it open.

Take care when posting, and make sure you keep it within the forum rules.

-A nerf doesnGÇÖt mean taking away any activities, it simply means making them less profitable. If missions paid 1% less they would still be worth it, what if it was 10% or 15%? You can still mine if the roids yield 8% less ore per cycle. You can do everything you can do now, just for less profit.

This entire "nerf highsec" campaign was begun by goons, and is perpetuated by them and their types.

Isn't that the state null is in now? You can do everything, it's just less profitable. And yet that state is called "broken".

I think that plays directly into the "null is broken so you want to break empire" argument.

This just in: Goons discover time travel!
Predictions for tomorrow: Mt. Rushmore will always have shown four carvings of Lowtax.


Oh, and there's plenty to fix. If you haven't found it yet, it's because you've not been looking or put a blindfold on.

Nerf high sec even more, large amounts of players will unsub, CCP will lose money resulting in 1 of 2 things: they start laying people off, which will grind EVE's already slow development to a halt, or they'll reverse the nerfs to high sec.

This entire "nerf highsec" campaign was begun by goons, and is perpetuated by them and their types. Their goal has nothing to do with "fixing" anything; there's nothing to be fixed. Things are fine how they are. Their goal, like it is in all the games they infest, is to "break" the game. To **** it up somehow. And CCP is going right along with it, too. They're gonna unwittingly **** their own game up for the goons (who have already infiltrated CCP via Soundwave). They use the "tinfoil hat" accusation against anyone who sees the obvious **** on the wall.

Scream that the sky is green into a man's ear long enough, and he'll start thinking the sky is green. Scream that highsec is broken long enough, and people will begin thinking it's broken. You scumbags are unfortunately versed in deception, and it's clearly working. We'll see what happens in the future, though.

What needs fixing?

What needs fixing? Give me a detailed list of what needs fixing.

And tell me how much you'd love to nerf highsec more. Give me numbers, too. Let's hear %s. Start talking.

And your sarcastic comments about goons and Mt. Rushmore are typical and expected.

Though it is a slightly different topic I think the main problem null faces is that alliances can't build a vertically integrated industrial base where money flows from the bottom to the top for other alliances to attack.

What I mean by this is you want people mining + ratting + manufacturing + trading in null, making everything they need (maybe importing 1-3% of the materials they need) and able to live independently of High Sec if they so choose.

The over-abundance of industry facilities.
The logistical ease.
The (minute to non-existent) cost of living.
The ISK injection GÇö both in terms of amount and ease of use GÇö in relation to those costs.

But the fact that they "can't" do that isn't a restriction of game mechanics. They can, it's just more profitable to do otherwise. Right?

You need to spend a lot of time in and actually -understand- a part of a game before you go on their forums and propose nerf hammers.

I'm pretty sure Tippia has more of an idea on how things work then you do. Even if I do disagree with him.

Assuming someone doesn't have ulterior motives just because they've been in the game for countless years is not wise.

ALL balanced by the lack of profit in high-sec.

In highsec, 3 hours of L4s can get you a fully-fit Drake

In nullsec, 3 hours of complexes can get you a pilot's license or two. How in the hell are you complaining about high sec when it's already NOTHING compared to the reward null offers?

Have you even lived in high-sec anytime recently? Have you done an L4 mission anytime recently?

You need to spend a lot of time in and actually -understand- a part of a game before you go on their forums and propose nerf hammers.

There are a number of threads on this topic that have been locked on this forum.

This one so far as stayed civil, as such I'll leave it open.

Take care when posting, and make sure you keep it within the forum rules.

What I mean by this is you want people mining + ratting + manufacturing + trading in null, making everything they need (maybe importing 1-3% of the materials they need) and able to live independently of High Sec if they so choose.

This would give other alliances a great target to attack and would really liven up the game, causing more people to subscribe for *awesome-timez*.

This is the problem of gheto-thinking of low/null dwellers (shoot anything that moves) , not by the game mechanic.

we are not willing to risk the security of our space and that we are not willing to share with people who have not helped us before.

...

Rather than a nerf to high-sec I would rather see a black market in lowsec and a buff in null.

Most of null space is borderline useless and should really be no less profitable than the best system in highsec.

Lowsec could use more signatures and anomalies even if they are mid-range at best.

ALL balanced by the lack of profit in high-sec.

The thing that all Nerfs share. For PvP, bring moar. PvE, do it longer. If you like blob and grind, keep promoting the nerf bat. You will find that every nerf is a nerf to all of EVE and this great divide between null and high sec is all in your head.

The problem is the Null bears have an illusion that CCP are on their side.

Personally I think the real lesson of Incarna for CCP is to stick to your core values, get in the niche and exploit it. They need to make the game as awesome as possible, that will keep it vibrant and alive in the long run. It doesn't matter who this pisses off, if people quit they weren't in your niche so don't worry about them.

Anyone when asked if WIS was awesome would easily see it was not, endeavouring to make nullsec into a space opera of politics, spies and warriors is, IMO, the path CCP needs to take to get EVE to survive in the long run.

There have been nerfs to hi sec income (L5 missions moved to low sec, datacore farming, PI taxes, Incursion nerfs) and they've made little to no difference in the player population distribution between the various secs. I'm all for "adjustments" to hi sec incomes for the sake of economic well being, but the "nerf hi sec to buff null" logic is clearly flawed, all too clearly mindless ranting and becoming rather boring tbh.

Plenty of players cling to the "risk vs reward" arguement in the debate around sec space income, with zero facts. In another thread, I at least attempted to quantify risk, with the data that is readily available, which seemed to indicate it was low sec that was most risky. In that thread Tippia made the valid point that ISK should be factored in to produce a viable metric. I challenge the OP of this thread to undertake such an analysis, say for VFK-IV, Amamake and Jita and then come back and argue their case.

Until the fundamental issues surrounding sov null are addressed by CCP, it will remain the place for the mega alliances/coalitions and remain an unattractive proposition for any player or small corp/alliance looking to establish a foothold. Sov null needs work on game mechanics, not simply a buff to incomes as this would inevitibly just make the mega rich even richer, but to give the sov null residents something to do other than participate in forum wars.

Whatver CCP throws at us we will adapt to, until they turn null into a rigid, forced system like high or low sec, at which point we'll all quit.

What happened to the famous HTFU attitude? Shouldn't null players be able to adapt to anything?

That's what null-bears need to remember! That this thing cuts both ways! You'll quit when null turns into a rigid, forced system like high or low sec? Well, guess what? The hi-sec carebears will also quit if hi-sec turns into a shadow of what it once was! And then what will you do? Gather around in null, hold hands and sing kumbaya until you get bored of that and quit too?

I think most of the null/low sec problems can be fixed by the POS revamp. I'd guess CCP is hoping that is the case too, so they won't make any other major changes until that is rolled out.

No, the truth is that we null "bears" really don't give a damn. We fight for FUN. We've long ago realized that EVE is not about make-believe numbers in a wallet or on a character sheet, and more about creating unexpected situations for people and exploiting them. Whatver CCP throws at us we will adapt to, until they turn null into a rigid, forced system like high or low sec, at which point we'll all quit.

The over-abundance of industry facilities.
The logistical ease.
The (minute to non-existent) cost of living.
The ISK injection GÇö both in terms of amount and ease of use GÇö in relation to those costs.

Throwing out the logistical ease item and industry, sorry but different issue if one at all.
Even if you did cut them in half people from null would still produce in high-sec because that is where the most stable market is.
Nobody goes shopping in war zone unless they don't have a choice.

Once again we are talking actual ISK faucet.
So the question is does High-sec ISk faucets excede those of null when compared to the sinks.

And as high-sec does not have any alliances you have to base it on per character which makes things , well rather nasty.
And the best ISK faucet in High-sec is once again Level 4 missions.
And we are really only talking about one particular mission style as well the fighting missions.

Oh look we are back to that old arguement.
So where is the data that shows what percentage of characters are upsetting the balance ?

That's discounting everyone that doesn't actively participate in any ISK faucets.

Like industry.

Why is high sec mining the most profitable way to mine?
Why are the lowest grade ores rated as the most profitable ore to mine?

I should not go to a mining calculator to find the best isk per hour ore to mine, and have it tell me a low end ore in high sec; yet they do. Why?

That's discounting everyone that doesn't actively participate in any ISK faucets.

Like industry.

Why is high sec mining the most profitable way to mine?
Why are the lowest grade ores rated as the most profitable ore to mine?

I should not go to a mining calculator to find the best isk per hour ore to mine, and have it tell me a low end ore in high sec; yet they do. Why?

In an effort to fix the risk reward balance in EVE it is possible CCP may need to apply a nerf to high sec, here are the most common arguments people use to say that idea is GÇ£impossibleGÇ¥, I donGÇÖt think any of them are reasonable and I think a Highsec Nerf needs to be on the table.

Nerf high sec even more, large amounts of players will unsub, CCP will lose money resulting in 1 of 2 things: they start laying people off, which will grind EVE's already slow development to a halt, or they'll reverse the nerfs to high sec.

This entire "nerf highsec" campaign was begun by goons, and is perpetuated by them and their types. Their goal has nothing to do with "fixing" anything; there's nothing to be fixed. Things are fine how they are. Their goal, like it is in all the games they infest, is to "break" the game. To **** it up somehow. And CCP is going right along with it, too. They're gonna unwittingly **** their own game up for the goons (who have already infiltrated CCP via Soundwave). They use the "tinfoil hat" accusation against anyone who sees the obvious **** on the wall.

Scream that the sky is green into a man's ear long enough, and he'll start thinking the sky is green. Scream that highsec is broken long enough, and people will begin thinking it's broken. You scumbags are unfortunately versed in deception, and it's clearly working. We'll see what happens in the future, though.

Nerf high sec even more, large amounts of players will unsub

Things are fine how they are.

Nerfing HighSec more will only cause an exodus from the game. Might be good for some, but not so much for CCPs accountants. The ideology that nerfing one area to promote another hasn't worked, doing so even more still won't work.

That's discounting everyone that doesn't actively participate in any ISK faucets.

Like industry.

Why is high sec mining the most profitable way to mine?
Why are the lowest grade ores rated as the most profitable ore to mine?

I should not go to a mining calculator to find the best isk per hour ore to mine, and have it tell me a low end ore in high sec; yet they do. Why?

ok ok

i will tell you the secret

if CCP wanted to nerf/buff high sec/low sec they would have already done that

they didnt so its obvious the current model is satisfying

unless you have economic analyses that will prove nerfing huge part of the game will bring more players/money you have nothing

so there

Once you are over the age of 45, it's all much clearer.

There's no bigger impediment for nullsec industrialists than trying to get their products to sell in highsec or anywhere else than gate camps.

2. Raise wardecc costs to 200 mill or higher. There are a large number of corps that exist in high sec sheerly to gank industrialists for ez kills, often driving them out of the game. I propose that raising the wardecc costs dramatically would force them into low or nullsec for their fights, thereby also accomplishing your goal, and dramatically increasing the population of both null and lowsec.

3. Evenly distribute tech moons. Instead of having the bulk of them belong to 1 or 2 alliances, they would be spread evenly and all alliances could share in the profit, thereby accomplishing your goal yet again of buffing nullsec.

The lowest end ore, is the best ore to mine.

Why would you mine something in null that you can mine in high, and get better yeild in an NPC station.

Or am I mistaken and people haven't been saying that you can't get perfect refines in a station in null?

Minerals in null also sell for less. It doesn't cost you anythign in high sec to move large quantities of minerals around. You can get your goods to market cheaper, and sell for more. If I have to pay high sec prices for minerals, I have zero reason to engage in null sec manufacturing.

And for the record.
I don't know what it's like doing PI in high sec, as far as ISK generation, but if it's anything like what you make in null it's a joke. Honestly now, running 4 colonies in null sec isn't making me any significant amount of isk that I would be concerned with how much I would lose in high sec.

Most who post about nefring high sec are just bitter about life and want to upset and get a reaction from other folks.

That's all really.

There are no legitmate reasons to severely nerf or eliminate it period.

Too many players would up and leave.

But these bitter individuals do not care.

Some people just want to watch the world burn, ya know ?

Also, a lot are just 'pulling our leg' with their nonsense, and are not really serious. Just attention seeking.

Once you are over the age of 45, it's all much clearer.

I'm all for nerfing highsec

null needs a bump

As long as the PLEX market stays the same, nobody; not even CCP gives a **** if you want to go all F*** EVE, and do something else. It's never been a soft and fluffy game, here's hoping it never is- Losing players didn't bother them for 10 years, what makes you think you're so damn important?

Are you implying that a sandbox game minerals market based on demand and supply and no ISK faucet should be neutered into a canned WoW game so that it's FORCED to give a certain (higher) reward in a certain location?

Because if it's so, then EvE is not for you.




You have got high ends and moon materials. Yes your bosses might pretend those moon materials are for an outer universe that does not include the grunts except for ships replacement, but that's a *corporate choice* sold to you as ideology.




PI is irrelevant, you are being taxed on it undoing the null sec fees advantage (but not the quantities), actually your own economists (i.e. Mynna) want to tax mining as well.

It seems a litte left wing politics world, taxes and more taxes, somehow fit like a square peg in the round holes of an hypercapitalistic game.

A.) Wardecs have nothing to do with ganking.
B.) Citation on Industrialists/haulers who have quit over ganking
C.) Wardec costs have nothing to do with ganking freighters for profit, freighters hauling more goods (isk wise) than it takes to destroy them have a far greater impact. Meaning no one would move anywhere.

WHY is it good for you to get the benefit in high sec? WHY shoudl the mechanics benefit YOU, and not us?
WE put in the effort and assume the risk, YOU do not, but get mechanics that benefit YOU. That's the opposite of what CCP says should happen.

It takes more people, putting in more effort, to mine something in null than in high sec. According to CCP, that should mean the reward is higher.

You're working around my point.

The lowest end ore, is the best ore to mine.

When you throw high sec mechanics on top of that, you then have a problem. Because it's no longer, lowest end ores are the best to mine, it's you can mine the best or in the game in the safest part of the game. WHY go to null sec then?

Then you've got the refining rates, which are better in high sec.
Why would you mine something in null that you can mine in high, and get better yeild in an NPC station.

Or am I mistaken and people haven't been saying that you can't get perfect refines in a station in null?

Minerals in null also sell for less. It doesn't cost you anythign in high sec to move large quantities of minerals around. You can get your goods to market cheaper, and sell for more. If I have to pay high sec prices for minerals, I have zero reason to engage in null sec manufacturing.

Then you have manpower.
You can only mine what you have the manpower to mine. If you don't have enough guys to mine out everything, then you have to make a choice. Since null corps have a much higher demand for high ends, they have an actual need to mine them. Not everyone can also mine the low ends.

I buy all of my minerals in null.
I know low ends are getting mined there. No one sells me imported minerals, that would be a loss.

That doesn't mean that it's just as profitable to mine low ends in null, it isn't; nor does that change the fact that the most abundant ores in null yeild the least used minerals in the manufacturing process. Or even the fact that some of those higher end minerals can be mined in high sec, and the more people mining in high sec the less value they carry in null.

Mechanics prevent it from being more profitable.
And it is mechanics that, in part, contribute to what players are willing to do. If people aren't willing to come mine in null because it's flat out less profitable to do so, they will not be encouraged to do it. The less people willing to do it, the bigger the problem gets.



Ignore sov mechanics.
Ignore the PvP aspect.

Think about individual activities that we do.

Tell me what "PvE" activity would you use to entice someone to null sec.
Remember, everyone needs something to do when they aren't PvPing.


And for the record.
I don't know what it's like doing PI in high sec, as far as ISK generation, but if it's anything like what you make in null it's a joke. Honestly now, running 4 colonies in null sec isn't making me any significant amount of isk that I would be concerned with how much I would lose in high sec.

It's like complaining about losing a nickel when I only have 35 cents.

The amount of work needed to make in a month what I make in a few minutes on the market is just not worth being worried about effort; regardless of where It is I'm doing it.

I find myself wondering if it is even possible to "nerf" highsec sufficiently to cause any significant player movement, since the reasons why people play in highsec in general have very little to do with reward and very much to do with risk and resource availability.

I find myself wondering if it is even possible to "nerf" highsec sufficiently to cause any significant player movement, since the reasons why people play in highsec in general have very little to do with reward and very much to do with risk and resource availability.

They moved L5 missions to lowsec because they were "too easy" in highsec and the payouts were too high, the players didn't follow, the L5 missions are still there and run by a few skilled and risk tolerant individuals.

Lowsec and NPC nullsec missions pay considerably more than highsec missions, yet people still stick to highsec.

Capital ships were moved out of highsec because they were too powerful for controlled space and people should need to accept some risk to play with the best toys in the game, still most players stick to highsec.

The best ores and mining opportunities are only available outside highsec, yet the highsec belts are stripped by downtime on a regular basis.

I therefore contend that it is *not possible* to nerf highsec sufficiently to cause a significant change in player behaviour without removing it entirely as a part of the game.

Once again.

"Moon materials" do not put ISK into the wallet of every person in null sec. why do you guys keep throwing that around like it matters, when it does not.

MOONS are for CORPS, not for the INDIVIDUAL. I do not see any profit from the mining of moons. Moons allow corporations to do things like ship reimbursments, which in turn allow them to do things like go to war. Kind of like the navy doesn't require a ship captian to buy his own cruiser, neither do corporations in EVE.

MECHANICS are directly responcible for profit potential.
This "Are you implying that a sandbox game minerals market based on demand and supply and no ISK faucet should be neutered into a canned WoW game so that it's FORCED to give a certain (higher) reward in a certain location?"

Is entirely redundant, because CCP has mechanics that directly controls this today.

I'm asking others,

WHY is it good for you to get the benefit in high sec? WHY shoudl the mechanics benefit YOU, and not us?
WE put in the effort and assume the risk, YOU do not, but get mechanics that benefit YOU. That's the opposite of what CCP says should happen.

It takes more people, putting in more effort, to mine something in null than in high sec. According to CCP, that should mean the reward is higher.

(if you want to fix null) might cut down on some of this

grifting players who try to move to null all the time ripping them off
ganking them when they join your fake corp
taking there stuff when you hall it to null
kicking them out of your corp with all there stuff stuck in corps station with no way to get it out
camping all the gates 24/7

this is a big one build ships and parts so there is stuff to buy in null

no... the real problem with null is nobody wants to do the prep work or work required to get there

some of you have 9000 man corps can't tell me you are not up to the task to getting high sec players to join your corps

I don't mind all the Industrial disadvantage I have. That isn't what keeps me out of Null, proof being where I am right now. My issue is the contempt others have for what I like to do.

I have said it before, time and time. I have 4 accounts. My original EVE char that can do pretty much anything, One mines, one manufactures and does R&D, one is a pure PvP meat shield and I have done Null many times and it's the same issue every single time. Bring the PvP meat shield, leave the rest in high sec, we don't need them. So Null suffers because Null asks for it. They don't want me the player. They don't want all I can bring to the table. They want my meat shield and they can't have her. Not without the rest.

But I mean,
Goons.
I mean who knew that by allowing people to play the role they want to and not "forcing" people to do things they don't like that you would become one of the most in/famous corps in EVE. Go figure.

Nerf hi sec to boost null sec is exactly as consequential as those who imposed the Tobin Tax with the pretense of funding other activities: they got NOTHING except their markets crushed and had to cancel it on the sly.

Making something suck does not EVER equal something else becoming awesome.

Please link me where CCP stated moons are for CORPS.
The currently pushed ideology says so, I am not even sure PL follows it that much.
Also, getting ship reimbursement IS a bonus to the individual because it makes their PvP plenty less expensive.
It helps the alliance but also the small roam "gudfites".
To make a comparison, an hi sec PvP corp with no moons and reimbursement program, will still require grunts to be in ships and work for the greater good but that's all on the grunts shoulders.
The milder nature of hi sec does for their members what moons do for yours: help them stay competitive even on the individual level.

Citation needed.
What if the intended reward was true FFA PvP with no NPC interference? Do you know?
I really hope you'll get all the 100% refineries of the universe and trillions of manufacturing slots but then?
Do you REALLY believe putting null sec efficiency refineries in hi sec would make anyone move out?

I tell you what happens: trit price increases because of lower hi sec efficiency, while megacyte and zydrine UTTERLY TANK because now there's VASTLY LOWER burden and inefficiency on processing them.

In the end, the markets are a nasty beast to tame, fiddling with the little mechanics EvE got about that is not going to produce relevant results.

I am ready to bet 1 billion with you about the trit vs high ends prices effect I stated above, do you accept the challenge?

just as you fail to understand a tobin tax you fail to understand the concept of balancing

as a tobin tax is more intended to shape behavior (mostly removing useless parasitic activities) than to raise revenue: the goal is the behavior shaping while the money raised is a positive side effect

for eve balancing, the issue is highsec is buffed to an extent that makes proper balancing of null impossible: in order to properly balance null it is necessary that the excessive buffs highsec possesses be reduced. the nerfs are not for the sake of nerfing, they are critical to open up sufficent areas to innovate in null

nobody gets ripped off if they don't want to be ripped off

the gullibility test is one of the finest tools null recruiters have at their disposal

if the recruit passes the test the corp gains a promising member and that recruit also gets to learn the nuances of navigating null as he brings his own crap to the home system.

if they fail the corp gets some stuff to fund operations and the recruit learns the 2nd most important rule of EvE, trust no one.

if you get kicked from corp that's your own fault, if you keep all your stuff at the corp station you're an idiot. Besides the second rule of Eve there is also the chance that your corp will get camped in station, never leave your eggs in one basket. That said if you can't get your stuff out of null, you should never have brought it in. (and yes YOU should schlep your crap in, if you live there you need to be able to navigate there in anything you might fly there)

nobody camps gates 24/7, if they do they are at just as much risk as people using the gate. if they can manage to lock down a system for extended periods then you should go somewhere else, there's plenty of places where there is no gate camp.

if a gate is camped use cov-ops or wait a while
if you live in null you better know how to fly cov-ops and you better have spent a couple days setting perches and safes in every system you'll travel through, then later you can do the entire region.

no... the real problem with null is nobody wants to do the prep work or work required to get there

I never stated that wardeccs or wardecc costs were related to freighter ganking. I was responding to the OP's obvious desire to nerf high sec in order to give him more targets in nullsec, as this is as obvious as the nose on your face. Forcing habitual corporate wardeccers into lowsec and nullsec for their fights, gives him what he wants, more people to fight. Your definition of "ganking" appears to be different from mine so I will leave it at that, as I refer to it as constant wardeccs and preying on industrialist corps that have no hope of beating hardcore pvp'ers.

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

-It really isn't, diversity in the game is obviously really important, the vast majority of players specialize and that is a good thing. This is about balancing the regions of the game.

...

Well, what about "unsubbing"...

all i get out of that is we want force high sec players to be target for are vet club good luck with that

There have been nerfs to hi sec income (L5 missions moved to low sec, datacore farming, PI taxes, Incursion nerfs) and they've made little to no difference in the player population distribution between the various secs. I'm all for "adjustments" to hi sec incomes for the sake of economic well being, but the "nerf hi sec to buff null" logic is clearly flawed, all too clearly mindless ranting and becoming rather boring tbh.

Plenty of players cling to the "risk vs reward" arguement in the debate around sec space income, with zero facts. In another thread, I at least attempted to quantify risk, with the data that is readily available, which seemed to indicate it was low sec that was most risky. In that thread Tippia made the valid point that ISK should be factored in to produce a viable metric. I challenge the OP of this thread to undertake such an analysis, say for VFK-IV, Amamake and Jita and then come back and argue their case.

Until the fundamental issues surrounding sov null are addressed by CCP, it will remain the place for the mega alliances/coalitions and remain an unattractive proposition for any player or small corp/alliance looking to establish a foothold. Sov null needs work on game mechanics, not simply a buff to incomes as this would inevitibly just make the mega rich even richer, but to give the sov null residents something to do other than participate in forum wars.

just as you fail to understand a tobin tax you fail to understand the concept of balancing

as a tobin tax is more intended to shape behavior (mostly removing useless parasitic activities) than to raise revenue: the goal is the behavior shaping while the money raised is a positive side effect

for eve balancing, the issue is highsec is buffed to an extent that makes proper balancing of null impossible: in order to properly balance null it is necessary that the excessive buffs highsec possesses be reduced. the nerfs are not for the sake of nerfing, they are critical to open up sufficent areas to innovate in null

In a way I find it amusing that people want more high sec dwellers in null-sec, in particular industrialists

In a way I find it amusing that people want more high sec dwellers in null-sec, in particular industrialists and at the same time want more activity of the pew-pew kind. These two wishes simply cannot mix in EVE's current state regardless of how you end up balancing sources of ISK anywhere in the game.

We all know why industrialists avoid low and null-sec. We all know why null-sec (and low-sec) wants more people and activity.

So yeah, it is very amusing indeed. All these wishes that at the same time clash against each other yet everyone seem completely oblivious considering these arguments have been ongoing for who knows how long now.

Fortunately I stopped reading at the point where I read "Pator tech school".

If you're producing stuff that can't be just jump freightered in, sure.

Then again, just how many supercapitals ~do~ we need?

Well, what about "unsubbing"...

Then stop building them and build Capitals. Chances are, more people are able and willing to fly those anyway. You can dock a carrier or a dread.

No actually, it's not "as obvious as the nose on my face".

When Null Sec anoms were first buffed - people moved from Hi-sec to Null-sec, either through renting space, joining renting alliances or joining other corps/alliances already established. In addition, hi-sec money making alts of null sec'ers were moved back to Null - also increasing the Null Sec population (because the money making alt would log in, and live in Null-Sec, not Hi-Sec).

So no, tbqh, most of the Null sec players responding to this thread (and indeed the OP) probably don't give a dam where you (or anyone else for that matter) plays, they just want to be able to build their empires and live in their space.

Pretty obvious, tbqh....

I disagree, if you think about the population of the areas the game is available (North America + Europe + Russia + Japan ~ 1.3 billion people) I highly doubt the 100k people you say are subbed are the whole niche for crazy space opera MMO's, even if people with an IQ of over 150 liked the game then that would still be 1.3 million before the niche was full.

It's happened before, but pure highsec players are going to compare their rewards to other highsec players for the most part.

The ability to fly a Titan at all is a *huge* gameplay reward that isn't available in highsec, yet you don't hear highsec people whining about how unfair it is that they can't fly Titans.

There are a few gameplay aspects that highsec players do seem to miss, the number of threads in various forums here asking for a ship that plays like a carrier but is at a suitable power level for highsec is pretty significant.

But I'd say that for most players who do the dominant portion of their play in highsec the rewards available in other parts of space are actually irrelevant, as evidenced by actual behaviour over time.

On the other hand, the isk faucet represented by highsec missions scales by the number of characters, so while the reward for an individual character may be unimpressive the player behind him can multi-box missions and multiply that relatively modest payout by as much as they have the technical ability to pull off.

Since there is no equivalent scalable income source in nullsec, this means that *any* profitable payout level in highsec will result in highsec resources being used to fund nullsec wars for the limited resources there, to the extent that interested players are willing and able to do so.

With the predictable result that people who want to try to play the "pure nullsec" game will be frustrated in their ability to do so unless they either have the cooperation of a significant number of highsec players, or manage to control sufficient nullsec resources thet the lack of scalability ceases to be a problem for them (and even then are likely to be annoyed at their highsec-funded opposition).
I have a question.

You've got a guy that wants to do science and industry. He plays EVE because he likes to build and sell stuff. He doesn't mind the PvP, and he understands that that playstyle is not significantly impacted by "risk" regardless of where he plays. He could play in null with the same realative safety as he has playing in high sec.

What do you tell that guy to get him to do building and selling in null sec?

And if he asked you, how much can I make building and selling stuff in null compared to high sec?




I know that I'm not the only person with my playstyle, and I know that there are a LOT of people who play EVE the same way I do.

Also, if you were me, where would you run your own PoS? Would you recomend I do it with this guy, or make a corp with my alt and use her in high sec? For the purpose of ISK generating. I don't want "ideal" suggestion, just the average run of the mill guy; what would you suggest for him.




Anyone can feel free to answer the specific questions.
I"m genuinely curious.

I have a question.

You've got a guy that wants to do science and industry. He plays EVE because he likes to build and sell stuff. He doesn't mind the PvP, and he understands that that playstyle is not significantly impacted by "risk" regardless of where he plays. He could play in null with the same realative safety as he has playing in high sec.

What do you tell that guy to get him to do building and selling in null sec?

And if he asked you, how much can I make building and selling stuff in null compared to high sec?




I know that I'm not the only person with my playstyle, and I know that there are a LOT of people who play EVE the same way I do.

Also, if you were me, where would you run your own PoS? Would you recomend I do it with this guy, or make a corp with my alt and use her in high sec? For the purpose of ISK generating. I don't want "ideal" suggestion, just the average run of the mill guy; what would you suggest for him.




Anyone can feel free to answer the specific questions.
I"m genuinely curious.

Thanks for the input.

I discuss this in point 2 in my list. There are loads of industrialists in Null, just not enough to make the Null alliances autonomous.

IMO this attitude is a big problem ATM, trying to split the game down the middle into the safe industrial zone and the pvp arena. I want to go the other way and mix everyone up.

I'd have a POS deep in the heart of Deklein and it would have a Capital Ship Maintenance array and assembly and I would push it so every other POS had one too. Good luck figuring out what ones are actually making titans and what ones are decoys.

Apparently, you have a difficulty in reading the OP's post as he actively calls for a high sec nerf. If you had read the post at all, it is clear he DOES give a damn how high sec players play and and does not "just want to live in their space". If he were actually interested in a risk reward balance , why call for high sec nerfs only, and not more null sec buffs? Frankly I havent seen you offer one solution for null sec buffs, which makes you irrelevant.

Apparently, you have a difficulty in reading the OP's post as he actively calls for a high sec nerf. If you had read the post at all, it is clear he DOES give a damn how high sec players play and and does not "just want to live in their space". If he were actually interested in a risk reward balance , why call for high sec nerfs only, and not more null sec buffs? Frankly I havent seen you offer one solution for null sec buffs, which makes you irrelevant.

Consider what you need to do in order to actually build a super cap.
7 or 8 months of skill training?
Never even run a PoS before.

Someone starts a thread in GD it would be titled,

I want to run a PoS,
He's willing to join a null corp and move to null if that's the better option.

Well, finally someone who at least recognizes where the actual problem lies.

Now an extra cookie to you if you can list the exact current EVE mechanics which prevents this mixture from happening. We all know that "risk is too high" is the dominant reason but what causes it to be just that?

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

-Many players who live in null are involved in trade and industry, many of them have allies and friends, they donGÇÖt just shoot everyone they see for no reason.

In an effort to fix the risk reward balance in EVE it is possible CCP may need to apply a nerf to high sec, here are the most common arguments people use to say that idea is GÇ£impossibleGÇ¥, I donGÇÖt think any of them are reasonable and I think a Highsec Nerf needs to be on the table.

Blah blah blah.... "This is what CCP need to protect for the long term health of the game and overall profitability, not pandering to an irrational few."


TL;DR, High Sec may need to be nerfed in the future, as it is too rewarding for how risky it is. The evidence of this is that 71% of players choose to live there when it is 1/7th of the space in the game. The arguments that this is impossible arenGÇÖt very strong.

Ooh cookie.

Um I think to hold sov you need to play a very competitive game. You need to have a lot of people in your alliance and you need to keep them as happy as possible.

This means you can't really ask them to build an industrial base in null on principle when you could just ISK up in high sec and import everything you need. Moreover you would be at a huge disadvantage to those who did import, and they would take your space for your foolishness.


There's a whole array of game mechanics that contribute to this, mostly it's mining in null, manufacturing and trading and ratting which need to be buffed and made the obvious thing to do if you live in null. When this is done making it harder to trade with highsec and nerfing highsec a bit would complete the changes.

Sooooo first high sec'ers are 'an irrational few' then suddenly you state 71% of folks live and play there. You went on and on and onnnnnn only to contradict yourself lol?

There's a whole array of game mechanics that contribute to this, mostly it's mining in null, manufacturing and trading and ratting which need to be buffed and made the obvious thing to do if you live in null. When this is done making it harder to trade with highsec and nerfing highsec a bit would complete the changes.

71% is wrong. Also "players" is wrong - the only information we have comes from CCP, and they've never (to the best of my knowledge) performed a census. So these are snapshots of where *someone* was logged in on a character - it conveys *no information* on how the actual players "self identify".


For example, of my three accounts (currently logged in) all three are in hi-sec at the moment. NONE of them is a "hi-sec" dweller.

So those numbers can't show where "players" live/work/fight.


Just an FYI.

Um I think to hold sov you need to play a very competitive game. You need to have a lot of people in your alliance and you need to keep them as happy as possible.

If I were you?
I'd have a POS deep in the heart of Deklein and it would have a Capital Ship Maintenance array and assembly and I would push it so every other POS had one too. Good luck figuring out what ones are actually making titans and what ones are decoys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MZD6-vGQms - Fan Fest presentation on the economy. 71% is wrong. Also "players" is wrong - the only information we have comes from CCP, and they've never (to the best of my knowledge) performed a census. So these are snapshots of where *someone* was logged in on a character - it conveys *no information* on how the actual players "self identify".

For example, of my three accounts (currently logged in) all three are in hi-sec at the moment. NONE of them is a "hi-sec" dweller.

Power projection in nullsec is too easy. It encourages mega-empires and means people have to travel really far to find fights. If we removed jump bridges and titan bridges and cynos, empires would be smaller and more localized and people wouldn't have to travel far.

Of course, the same could be said for highsec. You can safely autopilot almost anywhere you want Let's have each race's space bordered by lowsec so you have to go through at least one lowsec system to get anywhere. In fact, lets make it so each region works this way. It would encourage people to live locally and there would be more hubs instead of everything running out of Jita.

Most who post about nefring high sec are just bitter about life and want to upset and get a reaction from other folks.

That's all really.

.

Every fleet is judged by it's zerg power, Every Alliance is judged by its Blob potential. For a bunch of people that are all about fun, you spend an awful lot of time fixated on I-Win.

I find myself wondering if it is even possible to "nerf" highsec sufficiently to cause any significant player movement, since the reasons why people play in highsec in general have very little to do with reward and very much to do with risk and resource availability.

They moved L5 missions to lowsec because they were "too easy" in highsec and the payouts were too high, the players didn't follow, the L5 missions are still there and run by a few skilled and risk tolerant individuals.

Lowsec and NPC nullsec missions pay considerably more than highsec missions, yet people still stick to highsec.

Capital ships were moved out of highsec because they were too powerful for controlled space and people should need to accept some risk to play with the best toys in the game, still most players stick to highsec.

The best ores and mining opportunities are only available outside highsec, yet the highsec belts are stripped by downtime on a regular basis.

I therefore contend that it is *not possible* to nerf highsec sufficiently to cause a significant change in player behaviour without removing it entirely as a part of the game.

Power projection in nullsec is too easy. It encourages mega-empires

You know something is wrong when a single high sec system has more industry slots than entire regions of null.

Stopped reading at "null player"... WTF is a "null player"?!?!? Are you talking about nullbears?!? Or those l337 null sec'ers who never talk about the brigade of high sec alts that make all their money?

Oh, and wall of text blah blah blah Search Function blah blah nerf blah blah...

The (minute to non-existent) cost of living.

nullsec tried to destroy the metal...

When did Eve go f2p?

I doubt it helps your arguments about the high sec economy to refer to it's players as 'carebears' when it seems to me that a large population moves in and out of high and lowsec according to what they want to do at that moment.

I (and most other players, I would assume) don't bother with null because it's already well-known that there's not any spot in null for the solo explorer or the person who doesn't want to be part of a huge alliance and PvP constantly. Too much risk, no reward. You can't fault people in highsec for following the core principle of the game.

You know something is wrong when a single high sec system has more industry slots than entire regions of null.

Interesting points, thanks.

I very carefully avoid using the word "carebear" as it is derogatory. I guess others in this thread may have used it but I don't.

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

- This is not the meaning of a sandbox, I pay my sub too, can I have a ship that respawns? No, because it would be too damaging to industry. In the same way a super safe High Sec with massive rewards is too damaging to the rest of the game and overall balance.

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

- The absolute price of ships doesnGÇÖt really matter, what matters is how much effort it takes to get set up with a ship that can compete, whether a battleship or a mining barge. With a more dynamic eco-system outside High Sec the barriers to entry for all professions would be lower and so the fact that an individual ship costs more would not matter.

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.

But null sec is empty--- wait, is it still empty today?? I can't keep up with whether it's empty or not, fun or not, profitable or not...

But I should just wait until tomorrow. I'm sure another loser will post about how null is empty and/or high sec needs to be nerfed because of--- whatever the excuse is this week.

Why shouldn't EVE mirror that reality?

A nerf doesnGÇÖt mean taking away any activities, it simply means making them less profitable. If missions paid 1% less they would still be worth it, what if it was 10% or 15%? You can still mine if the roids yield 8% less ore per cycle. You can do everything you can do now, just for less profit.

Many players who live in null are involved in trade and industry, many of them have allies and friends, they donGÇÖt just shoot everyone they see for no reason.

Maybe if you wander in unannounced. Many players live in null quite happily, itGÇÖs a case of knowing how to survive there and making some friends and itGÇÖs really not too hard.

The safety of some regions of null is the result of the great efforts of many well organised, dedicated players. The fact their space is safe is a result of their hard work. Many alliances now recruit new players, this would be more common if industry were more viable in null.

Again a solo retriever is a tempting target but a combined fleet of PVPers and miners/PVEers with warp core stabilisers and scouts would be much harder to take down. Again itGÇÖs feasible; it just requires some skill and some friends.

This is not the meaning of a sandbox, I pay my sub too, can I have a ship that respawns? No, because it would be too damaging to industry. In the same way a super safe High Sec with massive rewards is too damaging to the rest of the game and overall balance.

The absolute price of ships doesnGÇÖt really matter, what matters is how much effort it takes to get set up with a ship that can compete, whether a battleship or a mining barge. With a more dynamic eco-system outside High Sec the barriers to entry for all professions would be lower and so the fact that an individual ship costs more would not matter.

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.

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.

The fact that 71% of toons live in High Sec is a clear indication that it is too good and may be in need of a Nerf.

Industrialists donGÇÖt want big piles of ore and ships, they want to sell them for ISK, the people who buy them are the ones who had ships destroyed because they took a risk and were unlucky. So the whole industrial market is the players, PVPers and PVEers everywhere. Asking to be left alone makes no sense, weGÇÖre all in this together.

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.

No player caused the problems null is now facing.

This isnGÇÖt an emotional argument itGÇÖs about balancing game dynamics. There are trolls and griefers in EVE, thatGÇÖs part of it, this isnGÇÖt by or about them.

3) My rough analogy to lowsec/highsec is, like most people, the Wild West of the 19th Century versus the populated East. Yes, even in the deepest areas of the Wild West, there were relative pockets of tranquility where people could live much more safely than in the wild on their own. None of them, however, had the industrial capabilities of the East. There was no Piedmont or anything like it in most of the West, and even to this day, more than 100 years after settling the West was a done deal, there are large swaths of the country that don't support heavy industry. Why shouldn't EVE mirror that reality?

lol, ok that's absurd, but to respond to the point you made



It's from the fanfest 2012 state of the economy video which can be found here. You are right, maybe it would be fair to say "toons" rather than "players" when referring to where people live. However every toon has a player behind it, even if that player has many toons.

didnt read the huge wall of text you posted

Where would you recommend someone who just wants to build and sell stuff, to make ISK, play EVE?

Where would you recommend someone run a PoS play if he doesn't have the skills to build super caps?

Yeah, I hear real life is really imbalanced. RL is dying, just like EVE.

I like that 2 pages after I asked these two really simple questions...

I, like every other person, know very well what the answer to those questions are.

Willful ignorance never fixes anything.

friday they both die

For many corp sizes and industrial operations this will remain the case even if highsec NPC industrial infrastructure is nerfed and low/nullsec is buffed.

It's not simply a matter of building incentive, but knowing you are capable of reasonably being able to utilize and defend your ability to produce things.

Here is a more than likely terribly thought out rookie idea, how about downsizing the potential number of bodies in any given corp/alliance. Then work on making corp/alliance controlled areas give real perks to the owners.

Would that lessen the 'blob', or a least make many of them.

That's diplomacy, not mechanics.

There are no mechanics to govern whether or not someone is your friend or not, and as an industrial corp you should have an emphesis on making friends. It's usually good for business.


Dude is corpless. He just wants to build and sell stuff. He's perfectly fine with playing in a more risky part of space.
You and I both run indy corps; mine in null, and yours in high. We both want to recruit corpless dude.

Who do you think is likely to get that guy to play in his corp, if his only concern is where it is best to build and sell stuff?

Actuallly wait? Nerf high sec and lets see how long Nullsec will die once and for all since 90% goods is exported from Highsec to support the war machine

A simple way to nerf highsec without targeting any particular payers would be to raise the sales tax. Like to around 5%. Make it more expensive to do business there to make up for the little risk there is. Some one has to pay for Concord and the like. Nullsec does this to various degrees to pay for there own player back protection in the form of reimbursements.

5% sales tax is a reasonable price to pay for omnipotent super cops.