These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Fix Null > Nerf Hi

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#281 - 2013-02-24 18:40:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Tardbar
Tippia wrote:
The problem is that it can't be done without nerfing highsec at the same time unless you buff null into uberville. Without built-in duping and infinite ISK and material fauceting, null cannot possibly become equal to high through buffs alone — the mechanics simply forbid it.


My questions has always been this: Why is there a pressing need to make null sec better? Is it too hard? Are there not enough people to shoot? Do you feel like you should be in hi-sec instead?

I mean it does come across as people are demanding CCP to make the game easier for them and to put more isk in their wallets simply because of where they live.

I know some people in hi-sec are guilty of this too, but they don't usually come in and post threads to make null and low safer or demand that low and null incomes be nerfed.

(Technically the best income you can get for your time these days is probaly a low sec one in FW if you are smart about it)

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#282 - 2013-02-24 18:43:04 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
My questions has always been this: Why is there a pressing need to make null sec better?
Because it has all this content that simply doesn't work — its mechanics are fundamentally broken and imbalanced.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#283 - 2013-02-24 18:59:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Aren Madigan wrote:
I'm still not entirely convinced nerfing high sec is the answer and that really should be more about increasing potential reward for risk first before thinking about any nerfs since really, but I kind of see what you're getting at.
I don't think I've ever suggested nullsec industry could be fixed with purely null buffs or highsec nerfs. Why? Because with highsec's three big advantages - ubiquitous availability, 99.9% efficiency and CONCORD protection, creating a null industrial system that could make that look bad would be imbalanced in of itself.

Of the three described, reductions to efficiency can be just passed onto the consumer and resolving nothing, while weakening CONCORD would be harder to push forward and effect more people then limiting highsec industrial capacity to highsec consumption. Nerfing highsec by itself certainly isn't going to make null industry viable I absolutely agree, which is why I'm in the camp of
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#284 - 2013-02-24 19:00:40 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:

I know some people in hi-sec are guilty of this too, but they don't usually come in and post threads to make null and low safer or demand that low and null incomes be nerfed

never seen a thread related to 'local', 'blues' or 'moongoo' before
heh
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#285 - 2013-02-24 19:11:39 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:

I know some people in hi-sec are guilty of this too, but they don't usually come in and post threads to make null and low safer or demand that low and null incomes be nerfed

never seen a thread related to 'local', 'blues' or 'moongoo' before
heh


To be fair, people who want local removed are people who go to null-sec therefore aren't technically a hi-sec crowd.

The people who argue about everyone is blue just want more fights. (But there is plenty of blue on blue violence to be had).

And the people who complain about moongoo tend to be jealous about owning sov regardless of if they are hi-sec or not.

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#286 - 2013-02-24 19:20:15 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Tippia wrote:
The problem is that it can't be done without nerfing highsec at the same time unless you buff null into uberville. Without built-in duping and infinite ISK and material fauceting, null cannot possibly become equal to high through buffs alone — the mechanics simply forbid it.


My questions has always been this: Why is there a pressing need to make null sec better? Is it too hard? Are there not enough people to shoot? Do you feel like you should be in hi-sec instead?


1. Because CCP has said that they want Nullsec industry to be competitive with HS.
2. Because literally nothing can compete with HS industry due to game mechanics. (Nothing being able to compete with something is pretty much the definition of something being broken).
3. Because of the principle in EVE's game design that increased risks should bring increased rewards, and Nullsec industry currently turns that on its head.
4. Did I mention that CCP has said that they want Nullsec industry to be competitive with HS?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#287 - 2013-02-24 19:35:08 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
1. Because CCP has said that they want Nullsec industry to be competitive with HS.
2. Because literally nothing can compete with HS industry due to game mechanics. (Nothing being able to compete with something is pretty much the definition of something being broken).
3. Because of the principle in EVE's game design that increased risks should bring increased rewards, and Nullsec industry currently turns that on its head.
4. Did I mention that CCP has said that they want Nullsec industry to be competitive with HS?


Well if CCP wants Nullsec competative then they must have their own plan and timeline. Maybe the economist they hired is looking into the matter.

If that is the case, then why are we arguing about in on the forums?

Are you worried that CCP doesn't consider it uncompetative now?

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#288 - 2013-02-24 19:37:45 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
If that is the case, then why are we arguing about in on the forums?
Because some people believe that balanced gameplay will “obliterate the economy” and because they are desperately trying to keep it from happening because it will have to entail a few, much-needed, highsec nerfs.
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#289 - 2013-02-24 20:43:27 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
If that is the case, then why are we arguing about in on the forums?
Because some people believe that balanced gameplay will “obliterate the economy” and because they are desperately trying to keep it from happening because it will have to entail a few, much-needed, highsec nerfs.


If just nerfs are done, it would. You'd have shrinking supply from less people willing to do the industry, a shrink from more getting destroyed, increased cost due to lengthy transportation, reduced mining... any change has to be balanced against those factors which buffs to null sec alone would not cause. Its not that I'm unwilling to see a nerf as I said, I just rather see how far they can bolster null sec first without exploits or new problems being opened up. Take things step by step rather than do massive changes all at once so the changes could be seen as they take the steps. Ultimately that's the reason I argue about this. As it stands high sec has a steady isk flow for beginning players and I don't think they should mess with that unless its proven necessary. Pull the numbers first, see how far you can safely buff it, watch the results and then nerf as needed is my view. Step at a time rather than jumping down a bunch at once, hoping you don't trip.
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#290 - 2013-02-24 20:48:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Tardbar
Tippia wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
If that is the case, then why are we arguing about in on the forums?
Because some people believe that balanced gameplay will “obliterate the economy” and because they are desperately trying to keep it from happening because it will have to entail a few, much-needed, highsec nerfs.


Well, while I was taking a shower (it happens every now and then) I thought long and hard about the situation.

From what I cam to a conclusion of is that there is probaly not a solution for your problem.

The issue of trade hubs being in hi sec will always be the case.

People prefer a location where they can buy and sell goods in safety.The majority of players are going to fly goods worth million (if not billions) of isk to a location in null sec. Why? Because null sec alliances have a hard enough time preventing blue on blue violence and awoxing and if they ran a trade hub it would be impossible to police neutral on neutral violence that will invariably happen around the trade hub.

So short of removing hi-sec all together (and given CCP's effort in developing hi-sec it is unlikley they will ever get rid of it) there is nothing you can do to prevent people trading at places like Jita.

The next thing we can discuss is what about Tech 2 goods? I mean you could prevent NPC corp members from creating them and maybe even nerf hi-sec stations, but that leaves the people with POSes.

I guess you could nerf posses to prevent T2 manufacturing and I guess all those players who spent large sums of isk and time on their POS will quit or move to T1 manufacturing.

So now null has a monopoly on T2 goods, but they still have to haul it to Jita because no one is willing to travel to your hubs because of all the bubble camps and still have to sell at the lowest price because not all of your null sec buddies are willing to collude in the prices so you still have to sell low.

Even if you manage to inflate the prices, the economic laws of supply and demand say the higher the price goes, the less people are willing to buy the product. People will get stingy and simply use T1 stuff for PVP and use T2 stuff only for PVE on rare occasion. In that scenario you have a higher price but you sell less so you make just as much money as you did before the price hikes.

So yeah, you are asking CCP to fix the impossible. You can't nerf human nature and the laws of economics.

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#291 - 2013-02-24 20:52:15 UTC
Extremely low prices (because of excess supply) are just as bad as extremely high prices. What we're seeing in highsec is some items being put up for less than their mineral cost, and older players with pseudo-monopolies on item lines or massive farming operations controlling most the market with razor-thin margins. There's not that much isk out there for new players looking to break into industry, because they don't have the skills, knowledge, or available capital to make much money, and because they have no recourse against these entrenched highsec players they have no option but to quit.

Introducing additional costs in highsec is a good thing because it would allow other players to successfully challenge older players by increasing their costs while introducing an element of risk.
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#292 - 2013-02-24 20:53:17 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
The issue of trade hubs being in hi sec will always be the case..


That's not a problem. The biggest trade hubs will always be in hisec. Nobody has a problem with that.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#293 - 2013-02-24 20:53:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Aren Madigan wrote:
If just nerfs are done, it would.
Again: how on earth would balancing production to be the same in all space “obliterate” the economy?

Quote:
You'd have shrinking supply from less people willing to do the industry, a shrink from more getting destroyed, increased cost due to lengthy transportation, reduced mining.
How does balance reduce activity? How does more demand make people do it less? How do reduced need for transportation make it more lengthy and costly? How does any of this reduce mining?

Quote:
I just rather see how far they can bolster null sec first without exploits or new problems being opened up.
Nowhere that matters. Again: how do you balance a cost-free economy against one that comes with inherent and unavoidable costs without either adding costs to the cost-free one or adding repayment to the one with inherent costs?

The only way to make it useful is to introduce legal exploits (which, of course, wouldn't make them exploits, but it would indeed break the economy).

Quote:
As it stands high sec has a steady isk flow for beginning players and I don't think they should mess with that unless its proven necessary.
It has long since been proven necessary and all the numbers have been run and re-run with only one result: you are trying to buff your way past cost-free, which can only be done by giving it negative costs — by making the system pay you for using it rather than the other way around. That breaks the economy by turning sinks into faucets. There really are no two ways about it.

The only other option is to remove the “cost-free” part… and guess what that means?

Captain Tardbar wrote:
From what I cam to a conclusion of is that there is probaly not a solution for your problem.
The issue of trade hubs being in hi sec will always be the case.

So yeah, you are asking CCP to fix the impossible. You can't nerf human nature and the laws of economics.
No, I'm asking them to fix the possible, which has nothing to do with highsec trade hubs — they are not even remotely the problem, so you should probably go back to the shower and think a bit more… (or less… if your thinking led you down that false path). Lol
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#294 - 2013-02-24 20:57:24 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
If just nerfs are done, it would. You'd have shrinking supply from less people willing to do the industry, a shrink from more getting destroyed, increased cost due to lengthy transportation, reduced mining...


So... if CCP does something that literally nobody is suggesting be done, bad things will happen?

No ****...

Quote:
any change has to be balanced against those factors which buffs to null sec alone would not cause. Its not that I'm unwilling to see a nerf as I said, I just rather see how far they can bolster null sec first without exploits or new problems being opened up.


Ok, name some set of Buffs to Nullsec that would allow it to be competitive in industry with HS without nerfing the unlimited, free, risk free, and convenient industry of HS. You keep assuming that this is possible but you haven't presented a single viable idea.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#295 - 2013-02-24 21:00:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Tardbar
Varius Xeral wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
The issue of trade hubs being in hi sec will always be the case..


That's not a problem. The biggest trade hubs will always be in hisec. Nobody has a problem with that.


Well people complain they can't compete with Jita and they are right. I just don't think you can do anything about it. The prices will always be lower in trade hubs and people will always go there.

I mean technically null has monopoly on quite a few resources that can only be produced there.

Yet those same resources are sold cheaply and in great number in Jita.

People act like if they Nerfed hi sec, the prices would magically go up and CCP is going to put isk in their wallets.

It still won't happen. Null-sec isn't unified enough to collude on the prices and even if they were, it would only decrease demand.

People's view that Null's economy is skewed based on unrealistic expectation of money they would theoretically make if only CCP would change things.

[edit]

Almost forgot something...

If you nerfed T2 production in high sec you also nerf the demand for certain nul-sec only resources The demand drop since no one can produce T2 goes as much as they used means that people who gather those resources in nul and sell it on Jita would have to find other markets. Again, those person would be wary to go to such nul-hubs for fear of blue on blue or neutral violence.

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#296 - 2013-02-24 21:02:34 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Well people compalin they can't compete with Jita


Just stop. You're only having a discussion with yourself and your own misunderstandings at this point.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#297 - 2013-02-24 21:07:05 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Well people complain they can't compete with Jita
No.

People complain that a single system in highsec provides — for free, in every sense of the word — more production capacity than an entire null region with all possible upgrades and trillions of ISK spent on it (to say nothing of the costs to maintain it) can possibly provide.
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#298 - 2013-02-24 21:07:47 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

Ok, name some set of Buffs to Nullsec that would allow it to be competitive in industry with HS without nerfing the unlimited, free, risk free, and convenient industry of HS. You keep assuming that this is possible but you haven't presented a single viable idea.

I've presented plenty of viable ideas, you just ASSUME that they'd do nothing. Quit being a child. Stomping your feet and shouting "IT WOULDN'T WORK" without evidence against is not discussion. Which is exactly what you're doing. You're not presenting anything that shows why it wouldn't work, all you're doing is telling. Show, don't tell
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#299 - 2013-02-24 21:08:31 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Well people complain they can't compete with Jita and they are right. I just don't think you can do anything about it. The prices will always be lower in trade hubs and people will always go there.


Only if you skip a few words. People complain that we cannot compete with the HS manufacturing process that's behind importing finished goods from Jita.

Quote:
I mean technically null has monopoly on quite a few resources that can only be produced there.


Aside from supers, which are produced from Trit imported from HS, what finished good does Nullsec have a monopoly on?

We're talking about industry.

Quote:
People act like if they Nerfed hi sec, the prices would magically go up and CCP is going to put isk in their wallets.

It still won't happen. Null-sec isn't unified enough to collude on the prices and even if they were, it would only decrease demand.

People's view that Null's economy is skewed based on unrealistic expectation of money they would theoretically make if only CCP would change things.


Ohhhhhh.... I get it. You have no idea what in the world we're actually talking about in this thread.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#300 - 2013-02-24 21:14:51 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

Ok, name some set of Buffs to Nullsec that would allow it to be competitive in industry with HS without nerfing the unlimited, free, risk free, and convenient industry of HS. You keep assuming that this is possible but you haven't presented a single viable idea.

I've presented plenty of viable ideas, you just ASSUME that they'd do nothing. Quit being a child. Stomping your feet and shouting "IT WOULDN'T WORK" without evidence against is not discussion. Which is exactly what you're doing. You're not presenting anything that shows why it wouldn't work, all you're doing is telling. Show, don't tell


Actually, no. I showed you the counterexample which proves that your single on point idea would be ineffective. (Psst: We call that "evidence")

HS POS manufacturing is faster (.75 production time for T1 items) but not free. Nobody uses it on any sort of scale. Tah-Dah. Manufacturing speed would not be effective at balancing the HS and Null (because it's not even effective at making HS POSes viable against HS stations).

The other reason it wouldn't be is that it, at best (50% build time, Unlimited free slots in Null), saves the nullsec industrialist 24k ISK/slot/hr which has to cover risk, transport costs, etc. 24k isk/hr/slot wouldn't come anywhere close to covering the inherent disadvantages of nullsec for industry.

If you made another on point suggestion about industry and I missed it, I'll apologize now and ask you to repost it.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon