[quote=Peter Raptor]Sure this has to be done carefully though, imprudently nerf hisec mining for example, and inflation will skyrocket, and people will whine about plex prices going to a Billion possibly.

How much "work" did hi-sec players put in to get all those invulnerable stations which they can't be locked out of?

You don't get to complain about tech moons in null until stations in hi-sec cost you 20 bill a pop.

You are not only misreading it, you're employing an obvious fallacy.

"People build stuff in hi-sec, therefore trying to make it viable to build stuff in nullsec as well is the same as trying to turn it into hi-sec".

"****** had a moustache and you're growing a moustache, therefore you're trying to declare war on Poland and conquer eastern Europe."

Imagine that all Amarr ships had a 50% hit point penalty in 0.0; correcting this wouldn't be "turning 0.0 into hi-sec", it would just be correcting an obvious and egregious imbalance, because there's nothing inherent to the concept of hi-sec that mandates Amarr ships only being worthwhile in empire and not in null.


SO: No, building stuff isn't the defining characteristic of hi-sec. What makes hi-sec hi-sec are the characteristics that are unique to it, like CONCORD.

The ability to build stuff is explicitly enabled in all areas, even W-space; but they're not properly balanced. Hi-sec has all of the advantages and none of the disadvantages, which is obviously imbalanced. You don't get to have the best stations AND multiple stations AND the stations are free AND you can't be locked out of them AND you can't lose them AND you get free NPC protection AND you can run missions from them... something has to give here.

Well W-space IS the frontier that wasn't meant to have large industrial capability. What it does have is the best PVE you can get anywhere, plus relative isolation and safety afforded by various mechanics and balanced only because there's no local.

I don't hear w-space residents clamoring for changes, I'm fairly sure they like it the way it is for the most part.

don't forget that they can only refine 75% at most of what they can mine, which is like... well... not that much.

Yeah we're asking to share the "problem" of viable industry

man how mean spirited and selfish can we get?

Is that a threat?

What else could you have possibly meant?
It doesn't exactly refer to anything in EVE.

There will not be a one way "nerf" or "boost" on either high or null. The balance between high and null will be revised as a whole, make the risk/isk reward ratio always match the "risk/reward" rule.

Hmm, wonder why the null bears dont cry "nerf WHs!" I mean if you find an isolated WH, and scan reguarly, risk is minimal.

Yeah , I have 17 PI planets in Class 4 with a Class 4 static, takes a long time to get to hisec through multiple WHs, and am willing to risk it since hisec PI is pretty bad. But I wouldn't wanna mine in a WH with the POS refining restrictions, unless hisec mining is made uselss, but that'll just wreck the economy.

Everyone agrees you must never try to nerf highsec, it's perfectly fine.

Many claim that nerfing hi sec will end EVE because of mass unsubs, so yes.

If only we could fit a module to vastly improve hulk tank at a reduced mining yield.

That was too complex, CCP rebalanced an entire line of ships because of that. I expect they'll "rebalance" regular freighters to have 2x the HP, 99% resists, etc. For the children.

Lol special case mod.

I was talking about DAMAGE CONTROL 2

To tell you the truth, if they "slightly" nerf hisec, it wont make any difference to player distribution, hisec has been mini-nerfed for years (lvl 4 nerfs, datacore nerfs etc etc) people are still not going to nullsec, nullsec needs a MASSIVE overhaul to attract players, nullsec is the problem.

They made it so you didn't have to pack into a few systems in eve to get the quality agents. No wait that was a buff.

Well yes, you could define it as a huge buff or an enormous buff. Or even a great buff. So many definitions!

I'm pleased to see that you're finally on the same page as those of us who live there. The foundation of a lively, interesting and diverse sov 0.0 is the viability of lots of different niches in the player ecology. Manufacturing, R&D, invention and resource gathering are the base of that ecological pyramid.

It is people that act immature that keeps everyone mostly out of null space. After all who would put up with this. What you get in null space.

In eve, high sec nerfs you!
All the high end ores are not present in high sec.
You can already make much more isk in null faster with very little effort.

If there is something that needs nerfing, are defenetly those high ends moons in null.
There is way too much PASSIVE isk made from moons in null

Open world
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Sandbox (video games))

An open world is a type of video game level design where a player can roam freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives.[1]

The term "free roam" is also used, as is "sandbox" and "free-roaming".[2][3] "Open world" and "free-roaming" suggest the absence of artificial barriers,[4] in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. The term "sandbox" is often used incorrectly. Open world doesn't necessarily mean sandbox. In a true "sandbox," the player has tools to modify the world themselves and create how they play.

Generally open world games still enforce some restrictions in the game environment, either due to absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity.

A player built outpost is a "sandbox" feature. (It would be more so if it were destructible)

Why? If it's a sandbox and you're given choices, then why should you be incentivized to leave? If anyone/thing wants you away and gone, why have that there in the first place? There's already rules about terrorizing newbie pilots, but nothing saying it's wrong to do incursions/lvl 4 missions, manufacture or have trade hubs in highsec.


So now you are indeed taking the sandbox element out of the picture thinking that high/low/null is a set value of "level" of gameplay.

Guess what, it isn't.

The problem, for you, is that you don't have enough targets. Wonder why ppl aren't queuing up to be your target?

Haha, look at him, saying highsec is the most dangerous.