You can insist all you want that the problem isn't with hisec. It is.

What? Balance what? This is not a game where you have one base and I have a base and you say that your base is smaller and has less windows from where to shoot from. Everyone has access to the same base and can come and go as they please, and when shooting happens, we all do it somewhere else anyway like lowsec, and if you can't enter that hisec base because of your security status then you already know how that happened.

What? Balance what? This is not a game where you have one base and I have a base and you say that your base is smaller and has less windows from where to shoot from. Everyone has access to the same base and can come and go as they please, and when shooting happens, we all do it somewhere else anyway like lowsec, and if you can't enter that hisec base because of your security status then you already know how that happened.

What? Balance what? This is not a game where you have one base and I have a base and you say that your base is smaller and has less windows from where to shoot from. Everyone has access to the same base and can come and go as they please, and when shooting happens, we all do it somewhere else anyway like lowsec, and if you can't enter that hisec base because of your security status then you already know how that happened.

Any targets that were once there have been relocated to hisec for running incursions, running missions, mining ice with only 2 seconds of interaction needed every 20 minutes or otherwise taking advantage of CCP's welfare programs for hisec.

"hisec, the newbie area..."

It's funny how you manage to accuse and point the finger everywhere but yourself in this post. You don't think that people have relocated to hi sec because they're just not welcome into your space?

No I'm pretty sure he doesn't, because he's talking about his own alts.

Maybe. But it doesn't make much sense he refers to his alts as "targets".

I still say that the nullsec players will never be happy with highsec rewards, because it has the highest population.

Having 100 other people with you in a busy missioning system cuts down the odds that you will be the person scanned down considerably, and would even work in lowsec if that many people could be dragged out there.

It's even better protection than CONCORD in some places.

Really, is it not about time CCP started admitting to themselves that hi-sec isn't just a starter area, hasn't just been a starter area for at least 6 years, and will never be predominantly a starting area ever again, and got working on a new conception of what hi-sec should be?

Ah, the old "$_SHIP isn't overpowered because anyone can fly it" argument that has been roundly mocked and solidly destroyed over and over and over but apparently this is your first time and I hope it was special for you too?

Picture this scenario:

You're a happy mission runner, happily running missions for the Minmatar Republic like a good freedom fighter should. It's your thing and you like it and you're happy. Your standing with Amarr is in the tank, of course, but hey, screw those slavers!

Then one day Greyscale posts a blog, and says that Amarr missions are going to be changed. First, they're going to get 75% more LP than everyone else's, second, the deadspaces are going to be locked so that no one else can enter them, and then lastly, 90% of the Minmatar LP store tiems (including almost all the good ones) will be in the Amarr LP store.

The Amarr missioners defend the change on the grounds that, hey, anyone can grind up Amarr standings and get the benefit of this change, and also it makes lore sense for Amarr missions to pay the most and have the best tech, and anyway, EVE isn't fair so ~deal with it~.

Your immediate response to that defence is exactly what we think of your post.

Less people will stick their heads in low/null because it takes longer to get the isk for ships. Congrats, even less targets.

You know, people who feel that they need to stick their heads out into low/null in ships that are an unreasonable burden to replace are already going about it wrong, no matter how much ISK they can make in hisec. So while we might see less late-generation players cluelessly roaming solo in T3s whose fits they found on Battleclinic, we'd have more nullsec players actually making their ISK in 0.0 rather than funding their PvP with hisec incursions and missions, which means more targets.

You know, people who feel that they need to stick their heads out into low/null in ships that are an unreasonable burden to replace are already going about it wrong, no matter how much ISK they can make in hisec. So while we might see less late-generation players cluelessly roaming solo in T3s whose fits they found on Battleclinic, we'd have more nullsec players actually making their ISK in 0.0 rather than funding their PvP with hisec incursions and missions, which means more targets.

High sec doesn't need nerfed anymore than it has been already. It is the most dangerous place in Eve to live/play.

Fact: 0.0 is over 4 times more dangerous than hi-sec

Only if you want it to be...

By 'dangerous' you probably mean 'risk of getting your ship blown up'. You might want to take 'on purpose' (ie by consensual pvp) or 'by accident' (ie nonconsensual pvp) into that. I think more ship losses in low/null happen when people engage in fights willingly than in high but a LOT more happen in high when people are ganked.

So yes 0.0 is more dangerous when you want danger; but if you want to hole up in your safe system with only blues around and when someone non blue shows up you gtfo then 0.0 is way safer than high.

So yes 0.0 is more dangerous when you want danger; but if you want to hole up in your safe system with only blues around and when someone non blue shows up you gtfo then 0.0 is way safer than high.

Since more people get ganked in highsec, it is more dangerous?

encouraging game balance is a sign of sexual peversion

"Executing the cost-reduction plan CEO Mark Pincus announced in November, Zynga has shut down, pulled from the app stores, or stopped accepting new players to more than 10 games such as PetVille, Mafia Wars 2, FishVille, Vampire Wars, Treasure Isle, Indiana Jones Adventure World, Mafia Wars Shakedown, Forestville, Montopia, Mojitomo, and Word Scramble Challenge. Comments from gamers on the shutdown notices included things like 'my daughter is heartbroken' and 'Please don't remove petville. I been playing for 4 yrs. and I'M going to miss my pet Jaime.why do you want cause depression for me and others. Why do you want to kill my pet?' For players that have invested a lot of microtransactions and/or time, this comes as a heavy blow."

As I was saying it all depends how you define danger. Those poor hisec pubbies (gods do you use that expression on reddit now as well as sa?) have a different definition to you. So what? Does everyone have to see this game the same way you do?

But other people having fun and relaxing does not, should not, make you have less fun unless you are a sadist. If you are then you need to encourage masochists to play the game instead of trying to turn other players into masochists.

No, you don't get to redefine "danger". Try again.