Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
5522
|
Posted - 2012.12.18 18:02:00 -
[91] - Quote
How can someone as economically literate as you complain about "min-maxing" in a PvP game? MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
Enilonee
10
|
Posted - 2012.12.18 18:10:00 -
[92] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Enilonee wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:The question can't be settled when the question wasn't asked in the 1st place. I did ask that question. I want to know your reasoning why such a change is needed in the first place. A nerft to high will always be a buff to low/null/w-space at the same time. Everything is relative, you know? If you don't want to balance anything, these changes would be an end in themselves - meaningless. This is just something you people do to try to discredit an argument you know you can't win. In effect you are questioning the underlying motive of our opinon, probably because thinking we hold that opinion for profit makes you feel better in some way. In short, you're calling me a liar, as If you (and this video game) are important enough for me to lie to. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you (like the other 6 billion of us on this rock) are no one. I've explained the motivation to you, you refuse to accept it, I will not try to convince yo other wise. I will only say that you are wrong in what you think, at least in the case of me. Now you are the one making things up. I'm not doing such a thing. It's just the way discussions work.
Here is the thing: With no REASON there is no cause for action. If you refuse to state one I'll just reject any proposal outright. I won't even discuss them (i wouldn't be able to anyways, as there is nothing to base discussion on). |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
685
|
Posted - 2012.12.18 18:17:00 -
[93] - Quote
Enilonee wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Enilonee wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:The question can't be settled when the question wasn't asked in the 1st place. I did ask that question. I want to know your reasoning why such a change is needed in the first place. A nerft to high will always be a buff to low/null/w-space at the same time. Everything is relative, you know? If you don't want to balance anything, these changes would be an end in themselves - meaningless. This is just something you people do to try to discredit an argument you know you can't win. In effect you are questioning the underlying motive of our opinon, probably because thinking we hold that opinion for profit makes you feel better in some way. In short, you're calling me a liar, as If you (and this video game) are important enough for me to lie to. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you (like the other 6 billion of us on this rock) are no one. I've explained the motivation to you, you refuse to accept it, I will not try to convince yo other wise. I will only say that you are wrong in what you think, at least in the case of me. Now you are the one making things up. I'm not doing such a thing. It's just the way discussions work. Here is the thing: With no REASON there is no cause for action. If you refuse to state one I'll just reject any proposal outright. I won't even discuss them (i wouldn't be able to anyways, as there is nothing to base discussion on).
So I've told you the motivation (REASON) several times now, if you cannot read plain english this is not my fault.
|
Anabella Rella
Gradient Electus Matari
364
|
Posted - 2012.12.18 18:17:00 -
[94] - Quote
What's the problem? I can make more working in Manhattan than Mogadishu. There's your real world analogy!
The bottom line is that although some rugged pioneers can make a killing out in the hinterlands most of the infrastructure and critical mass of people needed for civilization to work (and therefore make money) exists in developed areas not, the wilderness.
P.S. Eve is a game. There needs to be some fairly low stress way for players to make decent money in high sec otherwise they'll get tired of the grind and leave.
P.P.S. Did we really need yet another of these nerf high sec threads? Really? What you want is irrelevant, what you've chosen is at hand. |
Enilonee
10
|
Posted - 2012.12.18 18:26:00 -
[95] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:So I've told you the motivation (REASON) several times now, if you cannot read plain english this is not my fault. No. You stated a priciple that the devs use to balance the various regions of game (the latter being a REASON) wile saying you don't want to draw people out of high (which could be percieved as the main result of such a REBALANCING).
That's only a contradiction in my book. So as long as you don't tell exactly WHY one would need such a chang (except for the reasons you stated you don't care about) I'll refuse it. |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
231
|
Posted - 2012.12.18 18:39:00 -
[96] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Buzzy Warstl wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Enilonee wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:The question can't be settled when the question wasn't asked in the 1st place. I did ask that question. I want to know your reasoning why such a change is needed in the first place. A nerft to high will always be a buff to low/null/w-space at the same time. Everything is relative, you know? If you don't want to balance anything, these changes would be an end in themselves - meaningless. This is just something you people do to try to discredit an argument you know you can't win. In effect you are questioning the underlying motive of our opinon, probably because thinking we hold that opinion for profit makes you feel better in some way. In short, you're calling me a liar, as If you (and this video game) are important enough for me to lie to. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you (like the other 6 billion of us on this rock) are no one. I've explained the motivation to you, you refuse to accept it, I will not try to convince yo other wise. I will only say that you are wrong in what you think, at least in the case of me. Actually, you are dodging a legitimate question. You can't do only one thing, so knowing the desired result is critical if you want to evaluate the desirability of any particular change. Some changes that might seem to be "the right thing to do" turn out to be ineffective or even counterproductive. Like arguing with someone who is pre-pissed. Ah, the can't read English guy speaks. If you READ what we are saying, we're talking about motivations, not outcomes. Now, i'm reasonably sure the outcome of what I advocate can at least be conrtolled, but as I have no crystal ball I can't know for sure. WHAT WE DO KNOW is that buffing null (in the case or combat pve/military upgrades) does not work. The reasonable alternatives are then Do nothing OR readjust other areas to compensate. Doing nothing should be off the table, the game has (in my opinion) strayed to far already for it's own principles of risk(effort)/reward, allowing the status quo helps no one except entrenched high sec interests who are already well taken care of by the game situation. You buff null people are just advocating the provably failed policies of the past. What are those policies failing to do, though?
People fight in nullsec. They compete over resources. That's what is supposed to happen there. There is no lack of motivation to get people to fight.
Not everyone can play in nullsec. If they could that would mean there were adequate resources and nothing to fight over. You yourself said that the anomaly nerf happened because CCP wanted to encourage more conflict (and I would add that they apparently didn't think people were headed into nullsec fast enough to soak the additional resources up).
So: what is it that *you* expect to happen if highsec is nerfed? People who are playing in highsec because they don't want to compete on your field aren't suddenly going to decide that they want to. Good strategy demands that you fight on a field that favors your strengths and hinders your enemy.
A reasonable estimate based on the changes CCP has made over the past couple of years is that the percentages of players in the various regions of space is *very* hard to change, because it is the nature of the player and the nature of the space that determines whether or not they will play there at all.
Now, if you actually address any of the points I made here, I will be shocked, since I did ramble on a bit and I'm sure that there is some nit in there that you think is factually wrong, but hope springs eternal. http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
330
|
Posted - 2012.12.18 19:05:00 -
[97] - Quote
Aaaand let's get the thread back on track guys. Again, let's try to avoid the highsec vs non-highsec debate. I know it is a controversial subject and we all share passionate opinions about it but I'll ask both sides to agree we have different mindsets on the issue. What this thread is about is essentially a question about how to give players who want to leave highsec a proper reason to do so. Just because you might feel highsec will forever remain the place you want to play in does not mean your fellow corpmate feels the same way.
One of the most intelligent replies I ever read about why someone preferred staying in highsec was "the risks simply do not justify the rewards". This is a statement I completely agree with and thus, the only reason I find myself playing now outside of highsec is because I found another drive than just profit. My reasons could be very different from my best friend who flies with me as well, I accept this possibility.
Marlona Sky wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:You CLEARLY took his meaning of explore too literally. He obviously meant explore the game for themselves. As in, learn by doing, that sort of thing. Not as in discovering things nobody's ever seen or done before. I don't care. My point still stands. Even for the 'explore by doing'.
I agree 100% "exploration" is dead. Most has been archived/documented. But what Marlona says is true, I meant it in a "explore by doing" way. Just because the Blood Raiders 10/10 can be seen done on YouTube does not automatically remove the drive to go run one yourself. There are many things available strictly in lowsec, null and w-space that for some will be worth of a try. Some will prefer going in blind and others, like me, will read/research the topic before doing so. In either case, you are "exploring" your way to those things.
RomeStar wrote:OP is obviously upset that highsec carebears make more isk then he does Oh the tears from null bears they taste so sweet.
While this is a very seductive troll post, let me just point out that I am indeed upset. Not by the income but by the real and imaginary walls some individuals are forcibly confined in. Had I stayed there long enough, chances are I would have stayed much, MUCH longer.
Nevryn Takis wrote:To the OP.. Whose high sec income are you proposing to halve .. and exactly how do you only ensure they are targeted.. [...] as long as I can make stuff at a profit ( which includes running a POS) then it's not going to make any difference to my income..
Very good question. I do not know if 50% is an appropriate value (I quite frankly think it might be way off and hence why I stated it was arbitrary for simplicity) but the targeted players would be everyone in the scenario. This leads me to another point I want to make: it seems too often people will do the mistake of comparing two different income types while simultaneously comparing security regions. Comparing highsec level 4's to null anomalies is wrong; you should compare highsec level 4's to lowsec level 4's, and then to null level 4's. Now before someone jumps the gun, yes, some ISK faucets are actually balanced like belt ratting. Anomalies across all empires are also very well balanced in my opinion. People need to keeps this in mind if we are to discuss any sort of values at all.
EDIT: highlighted TL;DR text, please read the paragraphs you find relevant, thank you. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
118
|
Posted - 2012.12.18 20:28:00 -
[98] - Quote
Thor Kerrigan wrote:What this thread is about is essentially a question about how to give players who want to leave highsec a proper reason to do so. Just because you might feel highsec will forever remain the place you want to play in does not mean your fellow corpmate feels the same way.
One of the most intelligent replies I ever read about why someone preferred staying in highsec was "the risks simply do not justify the rewards". This is a statement I completely agree with and thus, the only reason I find myself playing now outside of highsec is because I found another drive than just profit. My reasons could be very different from my best friend who flies with me as well, I accept this possibility.
Your penultimate line is certainly make take on it and has been for years.
I've always believed that High Sec is (relatively) safe, it can be relaxing, OtherSec is where 'you' go for excitement, adrenaline - somewhere you go *for* the risks, not the rewards, those are the bonuses albeit ones with the potential to become really lucrative.
I never viewed OtherSec as a place to make real money - I always viewed that as a plus. If I want to make proper money, I'll play the markets.
I freely admit these are my own personal views but in short there's nothing keeping me from OtherSec - I go infrequently for a variety of reasons - RL constraints (small kids and PvP do not mix), time commitments, sometimes I don't want the stress. Othertimes I roll around whereever I feel for a while to see what's doing.
Perhaps this is why I take the viewpoint that the only thing stopping people going to OtherSec is 'themselves' and can't help but think if they're going there exclusively for the isk and nothing else...well...it's liable to be an unsatisfying experience.
Just my viewpoint, not trying to kick off an arguement. Any all 'you'/'themselves' and so forth are general terms, not aimed at anyone specific. |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
231
|
Posted - 2012.12.18 20:37:00 -
[99] - Quote
People who want to leave highsec will find reasons to do so, there are plenty already and lots more can be added without taking anything away from what you can already do in highsec.
People who don't want to leave highsec won't, and if you try to push them out of highsec too hard they'll just go play something else. http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |
James Amril-Kesh
RAZOR Alliance
1489
|
Posted - 2012.12.18 21:45:00 -
[100] - Quote
Why did I ever think there could be the potential for intelligent debate in this thread.
Me: "Risk vs. reward is broken." Average highseccer: "NO IT ISN'T I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HIGHSEC IS RISKY I DON'T MAKE THAT MUCH WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO FORCE PEOPLE TO CHANGE THE WAY THEY PLAY WHY DO YOU WANT CCP TO FAIL WHY DO YOU WANT TO FORCE PEOPLE OUT OF HIGHSEC WHY WHY WHY WHY" -áObjects in mirror aren't as red as they appear. |
|
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
231
|
Posted - 2012.12.18 21:49:00 -
[101] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Why did I ever think there could be the potential for intelligent debate in this thread.
Me: "Risk vs. reward is broken." Average highseccer: "NO IT ISN'T I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HIGHSEC IS RISKY I DON'T MAKE THAT MUCH WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO FORCE PEOPLE TO CHANGE THE WAY THEY PLAY WHY DO YOU WANT CCP TO FAIL WHY DO YOU WANT TO FORCE PEOPLE OUT OF HIGHSEC WHY WHY WHY WHY" The rewards from highsec play aren't that great.
There's lots of stuff that people do outside highsec that's lots more profitable.
Lots more can be added without taking anything away from highsec.
Why so negative? http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
2324
|
Posted - 2012.12.18 22:05:00 -
[102] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:How can someone as economically literate as you complain about "min-maxing" in a PvP game?
"Game" is the keyword, at least for me it is.
Actually, I do low "intensity" stuff like swing trading both in game and RL exactly because I don't want to become a slave of money or whatever. That's my opinion and life style of course. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Reachok
Full Circle Research Corporation
7
|
Posted - 2012.12.18 22:33:00 -
[103] - Quote
To the O.P.: Other than as a means to generate a discussion, I don't see the issue. I've not seen anyone discussing in local in high sec, or on coms that high sec income needs to be halved. In coms on my null sec alt, the issue doesn't come up. In null sec chat windows, the issue doesn't come up.
My question to you: Why do you think that high sec players should be punished for being high sec players?
The bad guys went the other way, seriously.... |
Besina Echerie
Vermona Collective
9
|
Posted - 2012.12.18 22:52:00 -
[104] - Quote
If you double nullsec income, they'll inflate the prices, which inflates EVERYBODY's income. A lot of the isk sinks are fixed values, so they'd shrink as far as how much of your wallet they bite off, and the inflation might keep going up. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1957
|
Posted - 2012.12.18 22:57:00 -
[105] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Why did I ever think there could be the potential for intelligent debate in this thread.
Me: "Risk vs. reward is broken." Average highseccer: "NO IT ISN'T I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HIGHSEC IS RISKY I DON'T MAKE THAT MUCH WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO FORCE PEOPLE TO CHANGE THE WAY THEY PLAY WHY DO YOU WANT CCP TO FAIL WHY DO YOU WANT TO FORCE PEOPLE OUT OF HIGHSEC WHY WHY WHY WHY" I don't know why, you've seen many threads like this one, why is this going to be different?
It isn't - as we've observed. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
273
|
Posted - 2012.12.18 23:01:00 -
[106] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:It would be an acceptable loss.
And that's why you don't work for CCP.
EvE Forum Bingo |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
401
|
Posted - 2012.12.18 23:10:00 -
[107] - Quote
Thor Kerrigan wrote:... Question 1: In the long run, what is the difference between cutting highsec incomes by 50% (halved) versus increasing incomes by 100% (doubled) outside of highsec?
Once you have answered this question, here is the next one:
Question 2: In which scenario would today's highsec players end up being richest (again, in the long run) with their accumulated wealth?
1: Static NPC cost. IE LP store isk costs, skillbook and BPO costs etc become harder to achieve if income is nerfed in highsec for those that make their isk there. On the other hand if nullsec is buffed various static cost could become trivial (intended result). Also the buff causes inflationary concerns.
2: A possible situation where nerfs cause the exodus of highsec causing population increases and a resulting loss of uninterrupted PvE/isk earning time and losses for those out of highsec allowing for the remaining relatively uninterrupted time in highsec to make up for the isk/hour disparity, or conversely if/when migration away from certain highsec resources in hopes of better else where causes a supply decrease that assist in returning value to easily highsec farm-able items. |
James Amril-Kesh
RAZOR Alliance
1490
|
Posted - 2012.12.18 23:35:00 -
[108] - Quote
Katran Luftschreck wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:It would be an acceptable loss. And that's why you don't work for CCP. Oh, that's the only reason... -áObjects in mirror aren't as red as they appear. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1957
|
Posted - 2012.12.18 23:42:00 -
[109] - Quote
Katran Luftschreck wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:It would be an acceptable loss. And that's why you don't work for CCP. And why you do, right? Since you're clearly superior. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Angeal MacNova
9th Fleet-Seraphins
50
|
Posted - 2012.12.18 23:46:00 -
[110] - Quote
I think people are looking at this risk vs reward thing the wrong way. CCP is limited to having the game provide the risk for a given reward and I believe that the two are weighed appropriately.
The bounties ratting in belts vs the likelihood that the rats will pop you. Agent reward for a mission based on the likelihood that you will get blown up trying to complete it. etc.
What players are factoring in though, is the risk that comes with not having Concord as a deterrent. Should CCP be compensating for player vs player risk like that? Or should it be up to the players themselves to minimize a player induced risk? After all, the difficulty of an enemy npc can be directly controlled by CCP but the difficulty of another player is kinda out of their hands. Well, limited by ship and module balance but any such restriction placed on the ganker is also placed on the gankee since both use the same, accessible equipment.
Now mining is a whole different ballgame. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |