For the "OMG High Sec is being nerfed into the ground" crowd I kind of wonder what is so bad about nerfs to high sec income?

And count me as someone who has lived almost all of my game life in high sec but hope to go hang out in null soon just for a change.

I mean it isn't like we lose a ton of ships. What do we need all the money for? OK I guess PLEX prices are crazy high but are that many high sec carebears only able to play the game via PLEX?

Can you still get a refund on that course? Because that's some serious hogwash right there. Eve fills a narrower niche than most, but they all have one. The history of MMOs that have tried to change their core game to appeal to a larger audience is checkered with failure, why do you people still keep insisting Eve needs to do this, despite it being the only MMO with a continuously growing playerbase?

You're all trying to cook up a problem that doesn't exist, so that your proposed solutions have something to fix.

One: the games that tried to appeal to more players might be checkered with failure, but the ones that reduced the number of viable play-styles are paved with it.

Two: Really? A continuously growing playerbase you say?

http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility

Funny, Chribba's New Born Player graph over at Eve Offline shows that new character creation on this server is, on average, on the down slope (there are however spikes when second accounts get discounts). Concurrency is at it's lowest point since Incarna, and before that we have to go all the way back to 08. Those are NOT signs of 'growth'.

While Chribba is a high seccer, I'm willing to be his numbers are dead on.

One: the games that tried to appeal to more players might be checkered with failure, but the ones that reduced the number of viable play-styles are paved with it.

Argh stop making me agree with Dinsdale, libertarianism is even dumber than internet spaceships (as goons found out when we tried to combine space libertarianism with internet spaceships; we ended up switching to space communism instead),

I'm sorry, I meant:

All hail Ayn Rand, long live Maggie Thatcher, bow before Saint Reagan the Unconquered Restorer of the Free World.
HERO is on the right path under the wise guidance of TEST, and anyway every newbee friendly ~internet spaceship guilde~ should definitely implement space libertarianism, especially if they want to topple goons, honest, guys!

Anyone want to join my new alliance Fountainhead [ATLAS]?

While Chribba is a high seccer, I'm willing to be his numbers are dead on.

You know what would draw in new players by the dozens? Nerfing highsec.

I'm the center of the universe and anyone that disagrees with me is obviously wrong because this game is about ME and what I WANT.

*sigh*

Ok, I'll bite, how did you come to that conclusion?

I can point to high sec population and concurrency numbers to support my theory that doing away with high sec, either nerfing it into the ground or flat out eliminating it, will harm EvE's viability as a source of profit for CCP.

Assuming that only ten percent (though likely higher) of high sec players actually quit, that's still a serious financial hit.

I can point to high sec population and concurrency numbers to support my theory that doing away with high sec, either nerfing it into the ground or flat out eliminating it, will harm EvE's viability as a source of profit for CCP.

I can tell you how he came to that conclusion.

Sub numbers spiked after the battle of BR-5. We had rookie systems in TiDi for goodness sakes.

Sub numbers have never spiked from mining. Or mission running. Or any of the mindless tasks of highsec.

One of these is clearly drawing in new players. One is not.

Make missions procedurally generated.

This, a million times.

Imagine the forum rage from Dinsdale & co. when missions are no longer predictable and easy to blitz. It will be glorious

I seriously doubt it, actually, as long as they were done in a way that made them fun.

*sigh*

Ok, I'll bite, how did you come to that conclusion?

I can point to high sec population and concurrency numbers to support my theory that doing away with high sec, either nerfing it into the ground or flat out eliminating it, will harm EvE's viability as a source of profit for CCP.

Assuming that only ten percent (though likely higher) of high sec players actually quit, that's still a serious financial hit.




Fixed.

People want mission running to be about shooting triggers, ignoring everything else and collecting a reward as quickly as possible because isk/hr

Anything that requires them to be "engaged" and "playing the game" is antithetical to the goal of increasing their cashouts

I can tell you how he came to that conclusion.

Sub numbers spiked after the battle of BR-5. We had rookie systems in TiDi for goodness sakes.

Sub numbers have never spiked from mining. Or mission running. Or any of the mindless tasks of highsec.

One of these is clearly drawing in new players. One is not.

When was the last time you heard a brand new player say "Man, I can't wait to munch on some asteroids all day long just like a bot!"?

Try not to mistake laughing at goons in the forums with goons for anti-goon hatred.

Still, if you want to think folk hate the goons, don't let me stop you.

On top of the publicly viewable research I've done on the topic, highsec strangles and stagnates the game.

I can tell you how he came to that conclusion.

Sub numbers spiked after the battle of BR-5. We had rookie systems in TiDi for goodness sakes.

Sub numbers have never spiked from mining. Or mission running. Or any of the mindless tasks of highsec.

One of these is clearly drawing in new players. One is not.

When was the last time you heard a brand new player say "Man, I can't wait to munch on some asteroids all day long just like a bot!"?

When I looked the only thing I found was you had done some numbers on ratting profits. Which look legit. Your other assertions don't seem to have any proof. You call the High Sec Rapture (I love that title) a myth, but supposedly so are evolution, gravity, and climate change.

If you want to say 'Eve is fine' I can point to numbers that show otherwise. If you want to argue that changing high sec in serious, fundamental ways won't adversely effect CCPs income, consider the loss of revenue from high sec miners unsubbing. Even if they didn't close all their accounts, we're still looking at a sizable drop.

When I looked the only thing I found was you had done some numbers on ratting profits. Which look legit. Your other assertions don't seem to have any proof. You call the High Sec Rapture (I love that title) a myth, but supposedly so are evolution, gravity, and climate change.

If you want to say 'Eve is fine' I can point to numbers that show otherwise. If you want to argue that changing high sec in serious, fundamental ways won't adversely effect CCPs income, consider the loss of revenue from high sec miners unsubbing. Even if they didn't close all their accounts, we're still looking at a sizable drop.

To the anti hi-sec folk.

Players do not have to play in hi-sec, yet they choose of their own free will to do so. In fact the majority of players choose to play in hi-sec.

Anti hi-sec folk may argue that this is because hi-sec is safer and easier to earn isk in than null-sec. I agree with them, (for the most part) the problem the anti hi-sec folk have is that the majority of players seem to like this arrangement.

Some of the null-sec folk appear to seriously believe that if CCP did away with hi-sec entirely that subs to the game would increase would increase, what evidence they have for this eludes me completely.

I am of the opinion that we all play Eve Online and that where we choose to do so is immaterial. Each to their own and all that.

Anti hi-sec folk are just going to have to come to terms with the fact that CCP has no intentions of doing away with hi-sec, not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

To the anti hi-sec folk.

Players do not have to play in hi-sec, yet they choose of their own free will to do so. In fact the majority of players choose to play in hi-sec.

Anti hi-sec folk may argue that this is because hi-sec is safer and easier to earn isk in than null-sec. I agree with them, (for the most part) the problem the anti hi-sec folk have is that the majority of players seem to like this arrangement.

Some of the null-sec folk appear to seriously believe that if CCP did away with hi-sec entirely that subs to the game would increase would increase, what evidence they have for this eludes me completely.

I am of the opinion that we all play Eve Online and that where we choose to do so is immaterial. Each to their own and all that.

Anti hi-sec folk are just going to have to come to terms with the fact that CCP has no intentions of doing away with hi-sec, not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

To the anti hi-sec folk.

Players do not have to play in hi-sec, yet they choose of their own free will to do so. In fact the majority of players choose to play in hi-sec.

Anti hi-sec folk may argue that this is because hi-sec is safer and easier to earn isk in than null-sec. I agree with them, (for the most part) the problem the anti hi-sec folk have is that the majority of players seem to like this arrangement.

Some of the null-sec folk appear to seriously believe that if CCP did away with hi-sec entirely that subs to the game would increase would increase, what evidence they have for this eludes me completely.

I am of the opinion that we all play Eve Online and that where we choose to do so is immaterial. Each to their own and all that.

Anti hi-sec folk are just going to have to come to terms with the fact that CCP has no intentions of doing away with hi-sec, not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

If the goons stop spamming the forums, I for one, promise to stop making fun of them.

Let's see what this CSM does, before coming out with visions of doom.

After all, visions of doom require the smoking of some seriously heavy stuff, and I have absolutely NO urge to share a bag with the goons.

No we dont think getting rid of highsec is good for the game. We want to get rid of high sec offering the same or better rewards as the higher risk areas of space.