I would rather look at the ratio between ships kills and pods as a way to see if there is a lot of PvP. NPC's do not pod.

Hold on a minute guys, I'm getting a lot of replies about how the hisec PvE population will quit.

To me, this doesn't make much sense. There are many other games with a much more focused, sophisticated PVE experience.

Why would many PvE gamers play a game that didn't have much PvE content?

I really isn't particularly controversial, unless you're a forums alt who stirs up **** without basis for disagreement, that highsec PVE-only players contribute nothing to the game except their continuous injection of ISK into the economy, causing inflation. They don't produce content. They just leach off what the game provides. About the only positive thing that can be said is that they still pay a sub fee (or buy PLEX which is basically the same).

They're just complaining louder.

Honestly, undesired interaction could use a buff. They went too far with Crimewatch and all that other stuff.

They start being able to make money where they live.



You should be able to make more money in less safe areas. The whole "higher risk gets higher reward" principle.
There should be an actual decision to make between accepting a lower income in the safety of HS and accepting higher risk in the high income zones of Low and Null sec. Right now, you can get high income and high safety at the same time, so there's no reason to make your income in Null.

That's a question that can only be answered empirically. Make small changes to the income levels of PvE in both areas then wait and see the metrics. HS is going to have to be nerfed though (primarily l4s and Incursions), even if only because that's far simpler than buffing every other source of income in a balanced way.

HS Industry, on the other hand, needs to be kicked hard. Right now HS offers unlimited quantities of free slots in perfect safety. There is no way to make nullsec compete with that without breaking the game, so it has to be nerfed a lot. (I make my ISK off of HS industry.)

Despite CCP continually pointing out that the greatest ISK faucets are null sec anomalies? This is what led to the anomaly nerf of 2011 (announced while FanFest was in full swing).

They are. Someone posted it in the Infinity Ziona Threadnaught of Lies, and since I wasted so much time in that thread I remember that particular piece of stats distinctly.

Which kinda makes me sad, considering that I have trouble remembering my sibling's birthdays since I got married. But then, I have a lot of siblings.

I think you're confusing "it's possible to do it" with "it makes sense to do it".
It might be possible, sure, if we fill every single system with a factory outpost. But don't ******* tell me that requiring us to do so in order to get a decent industrial base is good game balance.

Pot meet kettle. Its true though nerfing highsec would cause EVE to enter a golden age and be flooded with new players because nerfing highsec would cause EVE to enter a golden age and be flooded with new players.

Welp. there's another 5% nerf to null income arriving in Rubicon 1.1

Nobody is going to use those things.

The bounties are being reduced if you use it or not.

I don't even know how you cash those things in. I may have missed it in the dev blog.

hahaha, funny jokes

honestly, i feel nerfing station services alongside starbase and wardec iteration might be a really entertaining highsec gameplay buff

i mean, if -somehow- station manufacturing could still be viable (think: newbies), but it was worth putting up a manufacturing starbase for additional profit,
and also if it was better -somehow- to leave a starbase up during a wardec instead of immediately taking it down,
wardecs and industry might be a bit more entertaining and allow room for additional degrees of success in industry

i haven't actually thought this through properly but you get the picture

yeah. if the wardecced corp can say to themselves 'well, we could just pull it down, but if we do, this negative thing happens, and we'll need to consider if defending is the better option here', then i think that's a success in creating gameplay

if the defending corp says to themselves 'well we done the sums and it's worth hiring mercs for this timer, we'll still be able to profit here', that's a great success

i don't know if it's feasible but i'll always support that ideal of actually having something to fight for

e: i know the topic's about null. the point is, an industrial rebalance and npc station nerf might affect gameplay in all areas of space positively

This doesn't matter, no one is saying that some dude in a drake is making 100 mil an hour, we're saying it's possible with the right ships and skills.

Because it's possible, the balance with non-high sec pace is off. It wasn't always like that, it used to be hat if you wanted that kind of isk you went to null.

Hahahahahahahahaha.

Mate, this isn't about the skilled players who can make more ISK in the risky zones.
This is about the huge number of players (some of who use bots and multiboxing software) that are making huge amounts of ISK with very little skill or risk.

If everyone can do this, the economy becomes imbalanced.

It's the nature of the EVE economy that every time another person makes ISK, yours gets devalued.


If it took more skill to make ISK (and it was harder to bot/multibox) players who used their skill and intelligence to make ISK would be in a much better position.

Incursions are not run anywhere in null because they attract gangs like moths to a flame.

Nobody outside of the CFC can run SOE missions and even the CFC must deal with roaming gangs and neuts in local, it works out to be better income just doing it in high sec. The few systems are too easily camped to effectively run missions.

We ask for a nerf because our equivalent of level 4 missions, anoms, have been nerfed to the point where it is not worth running them. CCP have stated that they cannot buff them so there is only one option open to us. With this latest nerf to anom income all we are going to see is even more people going to high sec to make more isk for near no risk.

People said the same thing when they nerfed incursions. High sec will not quit.

Stopping mission blitzing would go a long way to bringing back balance without touching the "casuals".

High sec had nothing to match pre nerf incursions. The same people said they were going to quit over the ice changes and the POCO changes. Its nothing but empty threats that have been screamed every time someones unbalanced golden goose has been nerfed.

So long as those nerfs are not intended to fully cripple highsec industry and exist only to improve industry in Null I am not averse to reading it. My thinking however is that it really isn't a competition is it? Instead of selling officer/faction mods in Jita, sell them in a Null system or better yet put them on contract for the **** you need. Ruby said Tritanium is in short supply and you guys can't seem to get enough of it. If you use the assets that are strictly Null in origin can you not leverage those for what you need?

I'll give you X Tritanium for that Pith-A whatchamacallit.


Seems to me that you are selling short on this **** by selling it in Empire. If people want to fly bling ships, make them come get the **** from you at a higher cost than what you would make in Empire of course, Or those tosser mission runners can just fit T2 and cry about how ****** their fit is unless they go to Null.

Just spit-balling ideas here man.

Null sec life might bother you but it doesn't bother us. So again, why should null sov have worse income for a pilot than high sec?

no, you haven't

That wasn't a personal attack it was using data to prove something. You whined and said I showed no proof then you literally described yourself as the definition of a highsec pubbie. You also complained that others were biased because they were from nullsec so I pointed out you were biased since you came from highsec.

Highsec pubbies can safely be ignored because they don't do anything that gets the game recognized outside of its own community, they don't generate exposure or content. Two things the game needs to grow, people need to know it exists and have a desire to play.

Examples:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304887104579306663398628476
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/06/21/real-economist-takes-lessons-from-virtual-world/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/arts/07eve.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2013/07/09/eve-online-player-loses-a-spaceship-worth-approximately-9000/

None of those show a highsec person creating content or doing something so amazing that it attracts the attention of a national news organization.

Now you're trying to do the but, but, but, highsec subscriptions are > than the rest of the game so highsec should be coddled. Which isn't true and you can't back it up because CCP hasn't given us the data or a meaningful way to quantify who counts as a X sec subscription.

This isn't to say casuals should not be considered but, it is saying a specific group of loud risk averse highsec pubbies should be ignored and game balance should have nothing to do with them. Hence its time for highsec reward to be decreased or risk to be increased.

None of the articles are highsec specific.

They are not highsec specific meaning they arise from the areas that are not broken or imbalanced. If highsec were fixed I'm sure we'd see stories coming out of highsec.

I think we would, yeah I agree just increasing install costs and increasing concord response times won't make highsec the place stories come from. They are the first step to rejuvenating highsec, decrease the reward or reintroduce risk to highsec. A revamp of war decs, a greater fleshing out of industry/trade, and more content creation tools are needed. However that is step two of solving the highsec problem and it needs a good foundation to build on, which step one provides.

I wouldn't say its limited, I would say its different. As an example you can still shoot people you either need a wardec, a gank, or one of the many flag tricks versus just being able to shoot them.

For starters:

-More contract mechanics like freeform contracts, mercenary contracts, bounty contracts, loan contracts,

-A use for stock other than to steal CEO from corporations I awox,

-More deployables that rely around suspect timers yet have a benefit to industry/trade. Think like a deployable shipyard or deployable npc miners,

-Revamp of wardecs and bounties,

-A highsec ESS,

-More interaction for FW via highsec,

-Player run incursions,

-Player given missions,

-POS revamp,

-Procedurally generated scaling missions. So each mission is different and for each of your friends the mission will get more difficult as well as more rewarding,

-L5s in highsec with the caveat that they are 0.0 pockets.

All of that would add content and more tools for highsec.

Difficulty of fixing highsec is no excuse for leaving it in the horrible state it is in now.

Contracts give more option for player interaction, add more accountability, and for specific contracts there should be automatic enforcement. Like for a loan contract it would automatically remove the amount and send the payment to the lender as long as everyone was in highsec.

Stocks could openly be traded on the market and have more tools for the owners to enforce things, like being able to extract dividends, restricting access to the wallet, and showing a portion of the corporations value.

Highsec ESS it would be part of the mission revamp and tied into faction warfare.

Balancing can be done if its difficult oh well it can still be done, I leave the specific design up to CCP.

With scaling procedurally generated missions it would allow safety in numbers as well as a good return so players can control their risk. Which is basically the main appeal of highsec, the area where it is the easiest to control their own risk.

The 0.0 pockets allow risk mitigate the same as risk mitigation for a suicide gank. You control the area, the people your with and the time you intend to do the mission that's how you mitigate the risk.

I'm confident with testing CCP could fix the contract system. I agree that avoiding a gank and existing in 0.0 are different tasks but their risk is prepared in the same way. You defend from a gank by not making yourself a target, by selecting the area you operate in and by selecting the people around you. The same can be said of L5s in highsec that are 0.0 pockets.

Don't waste your time, come back with a prophecy or a taranis kill the guy, the BS and loot. If he has lost his flag or his ship is too big, bump him with a prophecy which is pretty quick, pretty agile and easy to bump with. Those pilots are happy if they obstruct you, really happy if they flag your marauder, but not really interested in an insured space ship that is going to be done before they get their killboat on grid, and a pilot who plainly enjoys fighting back and has the relevant insurable spacepixels. They may enjoy the resulting incident, but they won't be seeking you for tears or pinata in the future.

You can forum warrior whilst you wait out your flags.

if thats all too hard, cancel the mission and leave him there.