How? How do you propose to make Nullsec competitive with HS when HS is literally perfect for industry?

And you believe that highsec absolutely cannot afford a nerf under any circumstance because any nerf would lead to some catastrophic and dire outcome.

Yet you're telling us that we're the ones who are stuck.

As I said, rebalance things where nothing really changed in high sec but improved in null sec. Just would have to work out some of the kinks Nicolo mentioned. You're stuck in that mindset where you see that 100% and think nothing can change without a nerf, and that just isn't the case.

Because ultimately, high sec isn't broken.

I'm saying don't break what's not broken. Because ultimately, high sec isn't broken. It works fine, should be kept in its current condition. If null sec is where the problems are, then that's what needs to be changed with minimal effect on anything else. Now if someone does the math and says its absolutely impossible to fix null sec without a nerf, so be it, but the math should be done before for sure doing it.

How can "not perfect" compete with "unlimited volume and perfect"?

Make a suggestion. If you can't think of a way to make them competitive without nerfing HS, you can't continue to claim that HS shouldn't be nerfed.

Saying "rebalance it so you don't nerf HS" isn't a suggestion, it's a dodge.

Make a specific suggestion.

I did make something specific, but obviously you aren't paying attention so I have to spell it out for you...

Say for example they made it where 90% was High Sec's max, however that 90% after the change gave the same amount after the change as 100% did before (scrap modules would be tricker... best to make sure you can't get more minerals than you put in after all). Null sec however is able to reach true 100%, though maybe a little harder to actually make it worth training up the skills more. Bam, because you risked more being out deep in null sec, you get more. Production can be sped up in null sec for smaller ships, higher T2 blueprint copy rates, but at an amount based off the possibility of getting blown up so that in theory, supply stays the same, there's just higher potential profit in null sec.

Methods to increase trade in null sec. Encouragement, tools, and defenses for sov to maybe set up trading posts, limiting who can make sell and buy orders. The ability to boot someone out said station along with their stuff. Perhaps if Goons for example wanted to encourage trade with their allies, or have their industrialists be encouraged to stay by a specific trading post. I really don't want to go into detail with this element because I'm not sure how all it'd work, but hey, its a concept, maybe get some thoughts flowing.

Again, if the math showed this as not viable over time, then they could slowly move to more extreme measures. Hell, maybe CCP should get their economist discussing some ideas based on where he thinks where the problem lies to throw some ideas out there first. I'd love to hear his thoughts on it.

HS has Free, Plentiful, Risk-Free, and Convenient manufacturing. All at once. There is literally no way to compete with HS while it has all of those things.

If refining isn't an issue, then it shouldn't be being brought up as something to nerf and really those were just some examples. If you're going to shoot down ideas just because it "isn't enough" that isn't being open to suggestions. At that point you're just being a close minded child. Also when I said "T2 blueprint copy rates" I wasn't talking about copying BPOs, I was talking about invention. I didn't say make things more dangerous, I said balance the rates around the dangers. Understand the idea before you criticize. Also high sec does not have unlimited manufacturing. There's a set number of slots and pretty much all the good ones are constantly taken up and constantly being competed over. Quite literally my suggestions do exactly the same thing nerfing would do, which is make manufacturing in the area better. Making something better does not always involve nerfs. There are ALWAYS ways to buff things. ALWAYS. High sec manufacturing POSs are pretty popular for a reason, and those automatically are not 100% safe due to wardecs.

I just don't see nerfing as necessary in this situation

I didn't say it isn't an issue. I said it isn't the issue. Also, I haven't brought it up in this thread. Refining in nullsec is a pain, but not an enormous one.

Speed is not a significant factor for Invention any more than for manufacturing. (BTW, when you say "T2 Blueprint Copy rates" you can't say it's my fault for not divining that you're talking about invention)

I spent the month before the most recent patch manufacturing 2 Jumps out from Jita. I never once had to wait in a queue. Jita regularly has stations with open slots. When the station manufacturing capacity in HS is so high that you never have to wait in a queue 2 jumps from Jita, it is effectively unlimited.

The HS rate is effectively 0. To "balance the rates around the dangers," nullsec lines would have to Pay manufacturers for manufacturing there. Which is idiotic.


HS has literally perfect manufacturing capabilities. To be competitive, Nullsec would have to be better than perfect which would:
a) Break refining in hilarious ways or
b) create an unlimited mineral faucet or
c) create an unlimited ISK faucet.

I just don't think you want to admit that it is.

I call bullshit on the not having a queue... pretty much whenever I look in a heavy manufacturing area, its flooded with VERY long queues..

All that noise, and I still don't see any answer to the two questions that are at the heart of the matter:

How on earth would balancing production to be the same in all space GÇ£obliterateGÇ¥ the economy?
How do you balance a cost-free economy against one that comes with inherent and unavoidable costs without either adding costs to the cost-free one or adding repayment to the one with inherent costs?

I call bullshit on the not having a queue... pretty much whenever I look in a heavy manufacturing area, its flooded with VERY long queues.. and frankly, speed is a factor whether you say it is or not. If one person in nullsec can accomplish more with a single account than someone in high sec, that's a significant advantage even if you want to pretend it isn't. And no, you wouldn't have to pay manufacturers. Say on average 10% of goods manufactured in null sec are destroyed. Just throwing a number out there, don't look too deep in it. Say nullsec had a 10% bonus to all levels of manufacturing. Bam, that's 10% more potential profit to someone who does the job right, but overall supply stays steady.

As for your "a", "b", "c", that's where the math comes in. If the math shows that WILL be the result, so be it, nerf. But don't ASSUME it will be the result. This is something that can be calculated and dealt with.

I don't show you or anyone else throwing out numbers that prove all other options aren't viable. If someone has those numbers, then anyone with half a brain cell would have to admit it. I doubt either of us want to spend the time on running those numbers though, and I'm not going to assume there's only one way of doing it without them, I'm just saying given the option in this case, nurfing should be lower on the list than buffing if its viable.


EDIT: I will also say, assuming you're not just pulling my leg with the Jita thing, then yes, they should greatly reduce the number of station slots or greatly increase the length of them, but I'm not convinced my leg isn't being pulled from my personal experience... I do also know tutorial manufacturing really is used for too much else other that tutorial missions...

High sec is supposed to be a lot safer. It's high sec! Maybe if the null bears would stop whining about it being too hard ganking people in high sec, and instead focused on warring each other, rather than building a giant blue donut, then they would get the pvp they wish for

High sec is supposed to be a lot safer. It's high sec! Maybe if the null bears would stop whining about it being too hard ganking people in high sec, and instead focused on warring each other, rather than building a giant blue donut, then they would get the pvp they wish for

if people would read, and respond to the OP instead of making irrelevant comments....

that'd be great.

High sec is supposed to be a lot safer. It's high sec! Maybe if the null bears would stop whining about it being too hard ganking people in high sec, and instead focused on warring each other, rather than building a giant blue donut, then they would get the pvp they wish for

High sec is supposed to be a lot safer. It's high sec! Maybe if the null bears would stop whining about it being too hard ganking people in high sec, and instead focused on warring each other, rather than building a giant blue donut, then they would get the pvp they wish for

Ganking doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's a legit mechanic. I'm not whining about it

But obviously null has problems, as the OP stated. I was just adding my 2 cents on what I see is wrong with null sec. And right now I see more people calling for nerfs to high sec, to fix null. When I think that the giant blue donut is the real problem!

If only null sec was full of smaller alliances, it would be much more fun IMO.

Ganking doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's a legit mechanic. I'm not whining about it

High sec by definition is supposed to be safer. I don't see how you can argue against that.

Where did I argue anything of the sort?

Find where CCP ever said HS is meant to be safe.

How do you propose to fix null without nerfing high?

What numbers are you looking for? HS is Free, Risk Free, Unlimited, and Convenient. How do you propose to compete with that when Nullsec is automatically not Free*, Risk Free**, or Convenient*** (I'll assume step one of any Fix is increasing station slots in outposts, so we'll grant nullsec unlimited slots for the sake of argument.)?

*Gotta build stations or run POSes, so slots are not, and never will be, free.
**Get invaded, lose anything in build, at a minimum.
***Freighter on Autopilot is more convenient than a JF.