| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
502
   |
Posted - 2013.04.02 01:00:00 -
[1] - Quote
Because it has no relationship to how things really work. You can always make the most money in areas where there is the most stability. And when you think about it that makes sense. here is what doesn't.
The price of stability is a higher "price of admission". I could mine gold in the Congo or in Alaska. In the Congo there are less barriers to entry and lower overall costs, but significantly more risk. It is the first part that is missing in EvE hi sec, barriers to entry and higher overall costs.
Nothing is free in a "civilized" nation or space. Where are the mining permits and the subsequent outlaws that mine without a permit? Where are the taxes, beyond corporate taxes, for living in protected space? Docking permits, trade license, etc.
Beyond making the hi sec experience realistic it could add flavor to the game. Loose practices in some factions including corrupt officials or tight laws down to a specific permit required for each type of ore. All available at a local space station.
Risk versus reward is bozo. Lo sec is about freedom, hi sec is about sacrificing those freedoms for protection.
This thread has so much content it may be 'Thread of the Year' and it is only January.
|
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
504
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 01:33:00 -
[2] - Quote
Anyone who believes I want to nerf hi sec or support New Order has not followed my previous posts. But knee jerk reactions without research is the way in GD, amirite? People tend to stand too far to one side to recognize when something is in the middle.
And I don't know how what I propose is a nerf of hi sec. Null maintains order their way, more than likely with taxes involved, yet for some reason I can access the same systems in hi free of charge while my freedom is protected...for free. Maybe tax time is getting to me but the concept of benefit without cost seems...odd.
This thread has so much content it may be 'Thread of the Year' and it is only January.
|
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
505
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 00:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
Ginger Barbarella wrote:Nexus Day wrote:
Risk versus reward is bozo. Lo sec is about freedom, hi sec is about sacrificing those freedoms for protection.
You were actually kinda making sense until this statement. The only "protection" that exists in high is the 24-hour cooling off period for war decs, and that really only applies to people with small or medium towers that can't be arsed to fit them for defense (or man those guns). CONCORD is not protection, and merc corps are not protection.
I think you are missing out on all the protection hi sec offers beyond Concord.
Don't believe me? Try and shoot a bomb off in Empire? Just one small example.
This thread has so much content it may be 'Thread of the Year' and it is only January.
|
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
505
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 00:53:00 -
[4] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:
Policemen do not, as a rule, have the responsibility (or ability) to prevent any specific crime. All they can do is investigate and punish (simplifying) the criminal after the the crime has occurred. They punish that criminal according to certain laws.
I don't know where you live but here we have patrol cars. The operative word being patrol.
Police do not punish criminals, they apprehend them for trial. Only in certain cases do the laws allow them to deal out punishment, usually in retaliation to violence.
This thread has so much content it may be 'Thread of the Year' and it is only January.
|
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
512
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 00:09:00 -
[5] - Quote
On topic would be, Concord provides protection but no one has to pay for it. That is the part I don't get.
Bad pun in 3 seconds....
Most of this talk about Concord is just sour grapes.
This thread has so much content it may be 'Thread of the Year' and it is only January.
|
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
513
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 23:24:00 -
[6] - Quote
So I am glad someone brought up costs. That is what is missing in hi sec, the cost of doing business (bizness for the cool kids). Opportunity costs remain, the choice between activities, but there are minimal to no cost to cover the protection provided by Concord. Who covers their overhead? The Jove?
Not that their is a lot of overhead to cover one hit time to quit kills, but still I am sure Concord isn't manned by volunteers. Concord needs to get paid!
I believe costs are the X factor in balance between lo/hi/null.
This thread has so much content it may be 'Thread of the Year' and it is only January.
|
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
517
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 00:30:00 -
[7] - Quote
Anya Klibor wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Mining permits are already a thing, and have been for a while now, how did you miss the threadnaughts and whinefests about the New Order?
It's not up to CCP to increase the cost of entry, it's down to us, the players to put such things in place. It's already been done in nullsec, maybe it's time it came to highsec. Because those "permits" don't matter when CONCORD gets involved...?
I have seen the New Order permitting system in action and it is actually quite hysterical.
But I would prefer to have an actual permitting system in hi-sec, with flagging if someone mines without one. This would lead to the "do I attack the flagged miner or does he have a Tornado waiting to warp in?" It would also be nice to see someone flagged in open space rather than all the ones playing station games.
Note that this would and would not be risk versus reward. There is no actual extra reward for risk (not buying a permit) in regards to mining, but could be if applied differently. It would however be cost for benefit in all cases.
This thread has so much content it may be 'Thread of the Year' and it is only January.
|
| |
|