My initial reaction after reading through your proposals are

1B - no
2A - no
2B - no
3 - no
4 - probably no
5A - no
5B - no
5C - no

I'll give my reasons when I have some more time.

My initial reaction after reading through your proposals are

1B - no
2A - no
2B - no
3 - no
4 - probably no
5A - no
5B - no
5C - no

I'll give my reasons when I have some more time.

Though I am still far more in favour of carrots over sticks to change player behaviour. EVE has had many examples of sticks failing utterly to achieve their stated aims.

If you only change the game with carrots, you might as well just give isk away for runaway inflation.

Rebalances do not mean buffs across the board. The nail that stands up gets pounded down. The nail by the way is highsec.

I damn sure can, they've been doing it to me for a decade. It's about time carebears got to see how that tastes, in fact it's long past time.

They've had their way for ten years, highsec has gotten safer and safer, and their blithe promises of more "casual players" has not come true, nor will it ever. Instead the game stagnates, and lowsec in particular lies largely empty.

It's time the pendulum swings the other way, and it will be a net loss for them, and rightly so. I don't expect them to like it, they're being nerfed after all, but what's good for the goose is finally going to be good for the gander, so if those hypocrites have a problem with it, they shouldn't have spent the last decade arguing for things they don't like to get nerfed.

we will see what they do about it.

Personally I'd like to see the advantages of being in a player corp and remaining there being such that nerfs to npc corps simply aren't necessary. There will always be people in them, out of corp freighters for instance, but that's not that big of a problem (or it wouldn't be if we gave the people who are there to mission and mine in 'safety' a reason to join a player corp.

[EvE is built around the concept of Risk vs. Reward. In hisec, this concept is currently broken because players who risk less by staying in NPC corps can gain nearly as much in terms of rewards as those who take the additional risk of forming/joining player corps.

If suicide ganking is so easy why is it so rare?

I welcome changes that increase highsec content and address the current imbalance in risk and reward. If, in some biazzaro scenario, yet another nerf to ganking would be good for the health for the game, I'd be all for it.

Again, I'm not trying to take people out of hisec. I think that a thriving hisec is key to EvE succeeding. I just think that people in hisec need to experience a level of risk commensurate with their income. The more risk you take, the more income potential you should have. That's the key, underlying, consistent factor behind most of my proposed changes.It's not about moving people, it's not about forcing people to do something they don't want or in a way they don't want to do it., it's about balancing risk vs. reward.

I do feel that having more people in player corps would be good for the game...but I'm not forcing anyone to leave an NPC corp, hisec, or their given playstyles.

Highsec needs an adjustment though. It either needs to stay safe and have the rewards reduced, or keep the current rewards and made more risky.

The current state of low risk, high reward is impacting the rest of the game. Much of the current malaise in the game is a direct result of this risk vs. reward imbalance. Veterans who should be populating the more risky spaces are choosing to grind ISK and do industry in safety in highsec and the rest of the game is suffering.

If you made all PvE in lowsec say play 10 times the amount it does now, do you not think that many players would move there? There are terrible downsides for the economy for that proposal so I am not advocating it, but I am sure there would be a mass migration of players out of highsec.

And yet people do run missions in low-sec, even with the rewards and safety currently being better in highsec.

So you agree that players do currently run missions in lowsec, which makes nonsense of your claim that no-one will do it if the risk / reward imbalance is corrected? Excellent.

I think what you mean to say is that you are too timid to go to lowsec.

Many players are however comfortable taking that risk. They don't take that risk because it doesn't make sense financially. If you could make 1B ISK/h running missions in lowsec, many players would risk a few hundred million ISK ship to do so. This would trash the economy of course so is a bad idea, but as a thought experiment it proves the general notion.

Look at exploration, one of the few PvE activities that seems reasonably balanced. Explorers leave highsec all the time to chase the significantly increased rewards in the other spaces. It is expected you do so by those in the profession as soon as you can fly a covert ops ship. Staying in highsec is just not worth the time.

Some players are risk-averse and will always stay in highec. Many more are just smart and are there because the risk vs. reward balance is head-and-shoulders above any other space (except perhaps highend WHs) and pays them the most for their time.

It is this second group that CCP needs to get out of highsec to fix the game.

Make that "and" an "or" and you about have it right.

You would only become easier targets if you joined a player corp and/or left the highest security systems*.

You would only have your income reduced if you stayed in an NPC corp and/or stayed in the highest security systems*.


Either or, not both. You seem to think that I want to nerf hisec outright, and that couldn't be further from the truth.


*Note: I'm still talking hisec here. 0.5s/0.6s vs 0.9s/1.0s.



EDIT: Would you be less put off by proposals if, instead of including a set of taxes on NPC corps, I focused entirely on buffing hisec corps? I laid out something here but I'm still fleshing it out.


Also, you've had a lot to say about my ideas. Do you have any of your own? I'd love to hear them.