These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Highsec vs 0.0 - enough is enough, time to add some risk to the real carebears!
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Katja Faith
Doomheim
#161 - 2012-07-06 18:17:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Katja Faith
Never mind.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#162 - 2012-07-06 18:18:47 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
TotalCareBear wrote:
Wouldn't it be great if game mechanics allowed you to steal your 0.0 income, damage your earning potential, destroy poses, cause any damage at all with anything less than a supercapblob?.

Look up what happened in Venal from 2006 to 2010 when it was considered the Afghanistan of EVE. The superpowers all tried to conquer it and all of them died horribly.

I think you need to observe what happens when a Big Red Boat is deployed.


He flew my mega into a sky full of bombs on thursdaySad
Jimmy Gunsmythe
Sebiestor Tribe
#163 - 2012-07-06 18:31:52 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Alaya Carrier wrote:
His ideas might be very dumb, but they are not dumber than most 0.0 dwellers ideas.


Tell me the dumb ideas that normally come from 0.0 dwellers


Nerf Hisec comes to mind. It's pretty pathetic as is, you'll break it if you do anything else to it at this point.

Richard Desturned wrote:
Bootleg Jack wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
another NPC corp poster regales us with his well-informed and unbiased insights on nullsec


another nullbear with nothing usefull to say


i do love it when hisec miners talk about "nullbears"

i wonder, what defines a "nullbear"


Anyone that complains about the PvE aspects of other players not in nulsec while making massive amounts of Isk from PvE in nulsec.

You asked. Straight

All in all, I've learned that it's all relative, and that nulsec dwellers want everyone to play their game, hisec dwellers just want to play their game, and there's no such thing as a losec dweller.

Ok, just kidding. There are losec dwellers, and quite frankly, losec should be the place where all the choicest morsels are at, for maximum risk application.

John Hancock
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#164 - 2012-07-06 20:02:51 UTC
Sarah Schneider wrote:
TotalCareBear wrote:

Actually, removing local would make intel channels valuable. Right now, you have no need for them, beyond organizing a counter gank or maybe moving stuff around when you don't have a scout alt nearby - local removes the need to actively look at intel channels, because there is no counter vs local. You can always safely warp away, if someone shows up on local. In fact, even minor changes such as undoing standings showing up on local or not showing neutral/enemy names and numbes in local or even a 1 minute delay on local would help this game.

So how would you propose this "intel channels" gathers information from? People in stations? no local. People actively camping gates with cloakies to provide intel? without local, this would require a massively unrealistic amount of people, fully active, 23/7, on each gates (or on every gates within dscan range), just to achieve the same, even lesser amount of intel.

TotalCareBear wrote:

Great, let's make 0.0 alliance space even more like highsec, in fact let's ban pvp in max upgrade sov systems so more people would move to 0.0. Is that your argument? 0.0 has dangerously little risk, adding some element of risk & losses to 0.0 carebears would not hurt this game.

What you're talking about is not "adding some element of risk & losses", for an open space like nullsec (in comparison to wormholes), removing local is the same as burning down the one thing that made nullsec actually viable to live in. The word is "living" in, nullsec. Not roaming around or travelling around in null, but actually live in nullsec. Some alliances took over spaces based on this sole reason, even with alliance level incentives such as goos, they'd still need safe space to keep morale high and so that people can make a home in that space. A lot of people go to null to pvp, but to think of it as a home, you'll have to provide a form of incentive. Local, provides a safety net that made that incentive worth the risk.

Even with proper intel channels provided by local, people still kill other people in null, even the so called zero risk ratting ships. We even hunt people using local as a quick form of information gathering. So it goes both ways..

Wow, I can't believe I agree with a Goonie pet.

"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
ps3ud0nym
Dixon Cox Butte Preservation Society
#165 - 2012-07-06 20:04:34 UTC
TotalCareBear wrote:
ps3ud0nym wrote:
The funniest thing about this post is that those are changes that Goons and the nul sec alliance have been trying to push for quite some time for the most part.

That being said, there is a MAJOR difference between safety in high-sec and safety in 0.0. In 0.0 it is safe because the players MAKE it safe where in high-sec it is safe due to no effort or organization on the part of people who live there. It is entirely mechanics based.

What you appear to want is no safety unless it is created by game mechanics. You want mechanics to trump organization and effort. If you want to be safe, get people together and MAKE it safe. All those nul sec organizations started as small corps in empire and the ones you ***** about the most have had to work far harder than most corps. The time that Dreddit, the founding corp of TEST, has spent where they WEREN'T in a war dec can be measured in days. That is from the very first day of their founding. We aren't talking one war here. We are talking multiple wars at all times, well before they ever made the jump into nul sec.

Alliances and corps in 0.0 have to work for everything they got and they have to work constantly to keep it. In contrast, the people of Empire have to do absolutely nothing to benefit from the safety offered in high-sec. It isn't just risk/reward, it is also effort/reward. If safety is your reward, then you had better get off your ass and do something, you shouldn't get something for nothing.

So ya, nerf high-sec. There should be no place in this game where you get something for nothing.


How many times, do I have to reply to these...

Local requires no collective effort whatsoever. Really, this keeps repeating... What part of "Someone in local, Warp to SS/POS/Station" is hard, what part of it requires collective effort? "Collective intel or gangs" have really minor effect on alliance players, as local still is the best line of defense vs being ganked when carebearing in 0.0.

And game mechanic changes have favored 0.0 alliances. You can't possibly argue against changes putting them at disfavor, given that they have had plenty of boosts.


Oh ya! Totally advantages to Nul sec! The moon redistribution really helped all the alliances down south! How about the Anom changes? Those certainly made nul-sec better! And the changes to jump bridges! That put us WAY a head.

You are an idiot. Nul-sec has been nerfed to the point that there isn't even much point in taking space at all. The CFC is quite a bit different from other organizations in that it has a need for space in order to give their members a place to live and play the game. There is not much of any reason for anyone else to hold space. You don't need sov to get moon goo and are better off if you don't have it. Ratting income has been horribly nerfed as there are only a few systems in each region now that are worth ratting in at all, and to get that you have to spend billions in system upgrades first (never mind having to rat like mad to get the military indexes up). Moon income for anything other than tech is negligible and not worth the cost of running the POS. PI is similarly not worth the amount of effort that you have to put in. You can't run missions as NPC 0.0 is a totally different game than Sov 0.0. Exploration isn't bad, but the rewards are nearly the same as in high-sec for the same thing.

So, lets compaire that to Empire. In Empire I can AFK run level 4 missions and make more than I can ratting in the vast majority of systems in 0.0 (and I don't have to complete with several hundred others over 4 sites). High-sec incursions also provide a safe and extremely lucrative way to make income. If you do exploration your income will be almost the same as in 0.0, but of course you run little to no risk of getting killed. You don't have to worry about logistics and getting equiptment and ships past the nul-sec entrance points, so moving stuff around to trade hubs is very safe. And then there is the massive buffs to high-sec that have happened over the past little while. High-sec incursions are the biggest, the next would be taking away the quality levels of agents. And while you do this you don't have to worry about home defence fleets, sov costs, system upgrades (which have to be moved in a freighter BTW) and having your stuff locked in a station when someone comes and flips the system.

Tell me again how nul-sec has an "advantage" over Empire? Empire is SUPPOSED to be for new players. The fact that the income potential is nearly the same as 0.0 with almost no danger is contrary to what EVE is supposed to be. What makes 0.0 profitable is co-operation and organization. If people make more in 0.0 it is because of that, not because they have an advantage. There needs to be a reason to BE in 0.0 beyond the social aspects. That means 0.0 needs a serious buff, to make it MUCH more attractive. Until then, the situation will remain fairly static. No one is going to attack a stronghold when there is little advantage in taking it in the first place.
MarKand
Blank-Space
Northern Coalition.
#166 - 2012-07-06 20:17:19 UTC
ps3ud0nym wrote:
TotalCareBear wrote:
ps3ud0nym wrote:
The funniest thing about this post is that those are changes that Goons and the nul sec alliance have been trying to push for quite some time for the most part.

That being said, there is a MAJOR difference between safety in high-sec and safety in 0.0. In 0.0 it is safe because the players MAKE it safe where in high-sec it is safe due to no effort or organization on the part of people who live there. It is entirely mechanics based.

What you appear to want is no safety unless it is created by game mechanics. You want mechanics to trump organization and effort. If you want to be safe, get people together and MAKE it safe. All those nul sec organizations started as small corps in empire and the ones you ***** about the most have had to work far harder than most corps. The time that Dreddit, the founding corp of TEST, has spent where they WEREN'T in a war dec can be measured in days. That is from the very first day of their founding. We aren't talking one war here. We are talking multiple wars at all times, well before they ever made the jump into nul sec.

Alliances and corps in 0.0 have to work for everything they got and they have to work constantly to keep it. In contrast, the people of Empire have to do absolutely nothing to benefit from the safety offered in high-sec. It isn't just risk/reward, it is also effort/reward. If safety is your reward, then you had better get off your ass and do something, you shouldn't get something for nothing.

So ya, nerf high-sec. There should be no place in this game where you get something for nothing.


How many times, do I have to reply to these...

Local requires no collective effort whatsoever. Really, this keeps repeating... What part of "Someone in local, Warp to SS/POS/Station" is hard, what part of it requires collective effort? "Collective intel or gangs" have really minor effect on alliance players, as local still is the best line of defense vs being ganked when carebearing in 0.0.

And game mechanic changes have favored 0.0 alliances. You can't possibly argue against changes putting them at disfavor, given that they have had plenty of boosts.


Oh ya! Totally advantages to Nul sec! The moon redistribution really helped all the alliances down south! How about the Anom changes? Those certainly made nul-sec better! And the changes to jump bridges! That put us WAY a head.

You are an idiot. Nul-sec has been nerfed to the point that there isn't even much point in taking space at all. The CFC is quite a bit different from other organizations in that it has a need for space in order to give their members a place to live and play the game. There is not much of any reason for anyone else to hold space. You don't need sov to get moon goo and are better off if you don't have it. Ratting income has been horribly nerfed as there are only a few systems in each region now that are worth ratting in at all, and to get that you have to spend billions in system upgrades first (never mind having to rat like mad to get the military indexes up). Moon income for anything other than tech is negligible and not worth the cost of running the POS. PI is similarly not worth the amount of effort that you have to put in. You can't run missions as NPC 0.0 is a totally different game than Sov 0.0. Exploration isn't bad, but the rewards are nearly the same as in high-sec for the same thing.

So, lets compaire that to Empire. In Empire I can AFK run level 4 missions and make more than I can ratting in the vast majority of systems in 0.0 (and I don't have to complete with several hundred others over 4 sites). High-sec incursions also provide a safe and extremely lucrative way to make income. If you do exploration your income will be almost the same as in 0.0, but of course you run little to no risk of getting killed. You don't have to worry about logistics and getting equiptment and ships past the nul-sec entrance points, so moving stuff around to trade hubs is very safe. And then there is the massive buffs to high-sec that have happened over the past little while. High-sec incursions are the biggest, the next would be taking away the quality levels of agents. And while you do this you don't have to worry about home defence fleets, sov costs, system upgrades (which have to be moved in a freighter BTW) and having your stuff locked in a station when someone comes and flips the system.

Tell me again how nul-sec has an "advantage" over Empire? Empire is SUPPOSED to be for new players. The fact that the income potential is nearly the same as 0.0 with almost no danger is contrary to what EVE is supposed to be. What makes 0.0 profitable is co-operation and organization. If people make more in 0.0 it is because of that, not because they have an advantage. There needs to be a reason to BE in 0.0 beyond the social aspects. That means 0.0 needs a serious buff, to make it MUCH more attractive. Until then, the situation will remain fairly static. No one is going to attack a stronghold when there is little advantage in taking it in the first place.



Nuff said!
Makkal Hanaya
Revenent Defence Corperation
#167 - 2012-07-06 20:51:42 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
If you think that nullsec is safer than highsec you're completely ignoring the actual statistics that prove how blatantly wrong you are.


Population vs Kills, Jan 2012. There's probably a spike in Null due to the current events in Delve, but it seems high-sec is incredably safe compared to null and low.
[source]

I mostly do hauling, but a few nights ago I decided to 'hang out' with a friend who mines. For three hours, all she did was shoot at rocks and then bring them to the station. There were a ton of people out mining but not a peep in local about pirates or gankers. Yet she easily made more money than I do when I haul stuff through high and low sec.

Perhaps null-sec miners do their job in relative safety, but high sec miners appear to do the same.

Render unto Khanid the things which are Khanid's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#168 - 2012-07-06 21:02:48 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:

Sure, turn all of EVE into sov 0.0 and turn off local
should be fun
[

So you're willing to turn off local if it makes the game impossible for new players. Lol

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
strenif
Perkone
Caldari State
#169 - 2012-07-06 21:10:30 UTC
Makkal Hanaya wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
If you think that nullsec is safer than highsec you're completely ignoring the actual statistics that prove how blatantly wrong you are.


Population vs Kills, Jan 2012. There's probably a spike in Null due to the current events in Delve, but it seems high-sec is incredably safe compared to null and low.
[source]

I mostly do hauling, but a few nights ago I decided to 'hang out' with a friend who mines. For three hours, all she did was shoot at rocks and then bring them to the station. There were a ton of people out mining but not a peep in local about pirates or gankers. Yet she easily made more money than I do when I haul stuff through high and low sec.

Perhaps null-sec miners do their job in relative safety, but high sec miners appear to do the same.


Well there you go. Mathematical proof high sec is safer then null.
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#170 - 2012-07-06 21:10:45 UTC
TotalCareBear wrote:

Lots of highsec players are getting tired of this constant goon/[enter alliance here] spam: "NERF HIGHSEC, RISK VS REWARD." Time to look at the real carebears - the 0.0 alliances - and start adding some risk to their game. Once all these changes have been made, we can have a serious discussion on lvl4/hulks in highsec.


Well you're half right, the things you list do indeed make Nullsec way too safe, but your wrong in the sense that Highsec Incursions and Missions still represent are greater imbalance of Risk vs Reward despite those things you listed about Null.

So how about this...

We remove Local Chat Intel from EVE (long overdue)

Nerf Jump freighters, jump bridges, and possibly other cap ships capable of bypassing the risks of traveling system to system via gates and transporting assets. To compensate we can make Gate travel slightly safer for all by increasing the jump in radius around a gate when you enter a new system to ~150k 360 degrees around the gate.

Then for Highsec it goes one of two ways...

All PvE but level 1 missions moved out to Low and Nullsec

Or

Remove CONCORD from everywhere but newbie starter systems that only have level one missions and the tutorial for PvE. On top of that Faction Police only protect those with good Standings, and security status is divided by Empire region so you can be a rabid -10 ganker in Amarr space, but a +5.1 pillar of the community in Minmatar space on the same character.
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#171 - 2012-07-06 21:13:26 UTC
Makkal Hanaya wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
If you think that nullsec is safer than highsec you're completely ignoring the actual statistics that prove how blatantly wrong you are.


Population vs Kills, Jan 2012. There's probably a spike in Null due to the current events in Delve, but it seems high-sec is incredably safe compared to null and low.
[source]



If that active population or are all the shop alts and trial accounts included to massage the percent in your favor?

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#172 - 2012-07-06 21:17:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Sentamon wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:

Sure, turn all of EVE into sov 0.0 and turn off local
should be fun
[

So you're willing to turn off local if it makes the game impossible for new players. Lol


Haven't you heard? 0.0 = supersafe:
Certainly, newbies should be in the safest region possible, hence, all space should be 0.0 space

hth
Makkal Hanaya
Revenent Defence Corperation
#173 - 2012-07-06 21:22:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Makkal Hanaya
Sentamon wrote:
Makkal Hanaya wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
If you think that nullsec is safer than highsec you're completely ignoring the actual statistics that prove how blatantly wrong you are.


Population vs Kills, Jan 2012. There's probably a spike in Null due to the current events in Delve, but it seems high-sec is incredably safe compared to null and low.
[source]


If that active population or are all the shop alts and trial accounts included to massage the percent in your favor?

It's based on the numbers CCP Diagoras provided. If you have questions on how exactly he generated them, your best bet is to ask him via his twitter.

That said, I don't live or work in null-sec. I live in high-sec and work in both high and low-sec. The graph isn't much in my favor.

Render unto Khanid the things which are Khanid's; and unto God the things that are God's.
strenif
Perkone
Caldari State
#174 - 2012-07-06 22:02:36 UTC  |  Edited by: strenif
Makkal Hanaya wrote:
Sentamon wrote:
Makkal Hanaya wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
If you think that nullsec is safer than highsec you're completely ignoring the actual statistics that prove how blatantly wrong you are.


Population vs Kills, Jan 2012. There's probably a spike in Null due to the current events in Delve, but it seems high-sec is incredably safe compared to null and low.
[source]


If that active population or are all the shop alts and trial accounts included to massage the percent in your favor?

It's based on the numbers CCP Diagoras provided. If you have questions on how exactly he generated them, your best bet is to ask him via his twitter.

That said, I don't live or work in null-sec. I live in high-sec and work in both high and low-sec. The graph isn't much in my favor.


I think you missed his point.

The numbers you posted don't work out in favor of his position thus your numbers must be wrong and you must be biased. Don't bring facts or logic into this, they will only serve to strengthen his argument that you are wrong and have an agenda that undermines the people.
Generals4
#175 - 2012-07-06 22:06:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Generals4
Makkal Hanaya wrote:
Sentamon wrote:
Makkal Hanaya wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
If you think that nullsec is safer than highsec you're completely ignoring the actual statistics that prove how blatantly wrong you are.


Population vs Kills, Jan 2012. There's probably a spike in Null due to the current events in Delve, but it seems high-sec is incredably safe compared to null and low.
[source]


If that active population or are all the shop alts and trial accounts included to massage the percent in your favor?

It's based on the numbers CCP Diagoras provided. If you have questions on how exactly he generated them, your best bet is to ask him via his twitter.

That said, I don't live or work in null-sec. I live in high-sec and work in both high and low-sec. The graph isn't much in my favor.


Kills don't mean things aren't safe. When fleets go out to pvp their losses are voluntary and their deaths can hardly be considered as being part of some risky business. Let's also not forget that those stats contain the deaths in border systems and npc null). I think that when refering to "riskless null" people refer to deep sov space, where, let's be honest, risk is minimal. On top of that there are many many alts present in high sec. What would be an interesting but impossible to acquire stat is the ratio : people forced into involuntary pvp / population



But than again i find this whole discussion pointless. While removing local in null could be "interesting" i doubt it will be beneficial to the game and currently i think that risk-reward wise both null and high are doing pretty well.

_-Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily. _
that beast
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#176 - 2012-07-06 22:25:24 UTC  |  Edited by: that beast
OP quoted me and then asked me a question that had nothing to do with my post... Interesting tactic...
In response to how do I counter the whole "warp off" situation, I remind you that EVE takes ~25 years to train all skills to level 5 with max training times. Far longer in reality. EVE is a game of patience, and that's all you need to beat the warp off trick. The question is not "how do you beat it?" the question you *should* be asking, is "when will they make a mistake?". Looking for kills doesn't mean getting them. You can always kill a carebear, just because it isn't straight away, doesn't mean you won't get them in the end. Carebears in null die. End of.

You have numbers showing that null is more dangerous, and I'm somewhat proud to be part of the group making it that little bit more explodey.

But here's a challenge to the OP.

I will swap EVE lives with you. We keep our characters and whatnot, but you come down to where I live and try and make money out of mining in null. I, in return, will come up to highsec, and see how much money I can make out of mining. We'll also compare losses and time spent logged in so we can scale appropriately.

What do you say? Got the b**** to argue your case? Don't hide behind a forum post, show us the actions proving that you're right. Go out, and show us that your point is valid.

I dare you.
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#177 - 2012-07-06 22:28:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Antisocial Malkavian
which "real carebears"? The station sitting traders? Theyre the only ones that have NO risk

that beast wrote:
Carebears in null die. End of.


Thats a straight up lie and you know it cause IF it was true there wouldnt be so many bots CCP has to take a direct hand in it.
Theyd be dying. There is no bigger care bear than a mining bot

I HAVE carebeared in null and as long as your alliance has good security, its not only possible but proffitable

And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit.

TotalCareBear
Doomheim
#178 - 2012-07-06 22:49:14 UTC
ps3ud0nym wrote:


Oh ya! Totally advantages to Nul sec! The moon redistribution really helped all the alliances down south! How about the Anom changes? Those certainly made nul-sec better! And the changes to jump bridges! That put us WAY a head.

You are an idiot. Nul-sec has been nerfed to the point that there isn't even much point in taking space at all. The CFC is quite a bit different from other organizations in that it has a need for space in order to give their members a place to live and play the game. There is not much of any reason for anyone else to hold space. You don't need sov to get moon goo and are better off if you don't have it. Ratting income has been horribly nerfed as there are only a few systems in each region now that are worth ratting in at all, and to get that you have to spend billions in system upgrades first (never mind having to rat like mad to get the military indexes up). Moon income for anything other than tech is negligible and not worth the cost of running the POS. PI is similarly not worth the amount of effort that you have to put in. You can't run missions as NPC 0.0 is a totally different game than Sov 0.0. Exploration isn't bad, but the rewards are nearly the same as in high-sec for the same thing.

So, lets compaire that to Empire. In Empire I can AFK run level 4 missions and make more than I can ratting in the vast majority of systems in 0.0 (and I don't have to complete with several hundred others over 4 sites). High-sec incursions also provide a safe and extremely lucrative way to make income. If you do exploration your income will be almost the same as in 0.0, but of course you run little to no risk of getting killed. You don't have to worry about logistics and getting equiptment and ships past the nul-sec entrance points, so moving stuff around to trade hubs is very safe. And then there is the massive buffs to high-sec that have happened over the past little while. High-sec incursions are the biggest, the next would be taking away the quality levels of agents. And while you do this you don't have to worry about home defence fleets, sov costs, system upgrades (which have to be moved in a freighter BTW) and having your stuff locked in a station when someone comes and flips the system.

Tell me again how nul-sec has an "advantage" over Empire? Empire is SUPPOSED to be for new players. The fact that the income potential is nearly the same as 0.0 with almost no danger is contrary to what EVE is supposed to be. What makes 0.0 profitable is co-operation and organization. If people make more in 0.0 it is because of that, not because they have an advantage. There needs to be a reason to BE in 0.0 beyond the social aspects. That means 0.0 needs a serious buff, to make it MUCH more attractive. Until then, the situation will remain fairly static. No one is going to attack a stronghold when there is little advantage in taking it in the first place.


Having minor nerfs to game mechanics that shouldn't have existed in the first place isn't in any way "nerfing 0.0 to oblivion.

Go check what is going on with Tech prices. NC./Goon both get something like 3 Trillion isk per month only from tech mining? If that doesn't make all alliance want to pile up and get their piece of the pie in the north, you know something is wrong - namely attacking and taking over 0.0 sov is too hard, takes too long and is ultimately too boring.

The idea that boosting every 0.0 region will somehow make hordes of highsec players run to 0.0 and that is somehow going to create new dynamic alliances that are willing to take new space... is well naive. I would understand if you argued for more economic inequality between the regions, creating more bottlenecks, creating dynamic markets that make different regions boom & bust during different times, but I guess the 99% won't accept that. 99% of the 0.0 bears, that is.
TotalCareBear
Doomheim
#179 - 2012-07-06 22:55:33 UTC
that beast wrote:
OP quoted me and then asked me a question that had nothing to do with my post... Interesting tactic...
In response to how do I counter the whole "warp off" situation, I remind you that EVE takes ~25 years to train all skills to level 5 with max training times. Far longer in reality. EVE is a game of patience, and that's all you need to beat the warp off trick. The question is not "how do you beat it?" the question you *should* be asking, is "when will they make a mistake?". Looking for kills doesn't mean getting them. You can always kill a carebear, just because it isn't straight away, doesn't mean you won't get them in the end. Carebears in null die. End of.

You have numbers showing that null is more dangerous, and I'm somewhat proud to be part of the group making it that little bit more explodey.

But here's a challenge to the OP.

I will swap EVE lives with you. We keep our characters and whatnot, but you come down to where I live and try and make money out of mining in null. I, in return, will come up to highsec, and see how much money I can make out of mining. We'll also compare losses and time spent logged in so we can scale appropriately.

What do you say? Got the b**** to argue your case? Don't hide behind a forum post, show us the actions proving that you're right. Go out, and show us that your point is valid.

I dare you.


I will contact you with my main, when you are online.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#180 - 2012-07-06 22:57:04 UTC
TotalCareBear wrote:
Having minor nerfs to game mechanics that shouldn't have existed in the first place isn't in any way "nerfing 0.0 to oblivion.

Go check what is going on with Tech prices. NC./Goon both get something like 3 Trillion isk per month only from tech mining? If that doesn't make all alliance want to pile up and get their piece of the pie in the north, you know something is wrong - namely attacking and taking over 0.0 sov is too hard, takes too long and is ultimately too boring.

Ask Pandemic Legion how holding sov is related to holding moons