These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Should nullsec industry > hisec industry?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#181 - 2013-03-06 14:05:00 UTC
Fearghaz Tiwas wrote:
Actually, you have. What I suggested would help all areas outside of trade hubs. Probably most benefiting Hi sec, followed by low. Admittedly, it might not help NPC null as much as Sov, but it would help. Highsec should pay for protection in the form of taxes on the buying and selling of items, at higher rates depending on the sec status.


If there's to be a revolution of how EvE works it has to be well planned and all encompassing (the current model is all encompassing).
As such if we really have to dumb down EvE enough to provide a predictable and canned reward = f(risk), then a priority has to be done about where risk is the highest and give the top buff in there.

Regardless whether hi sec has to be nerfed or not, in the end the reward = f(risk) profile should be:

hi sec (lowest) => sov sec => low sec => WH => NPC null sec, with some more thought about where to exactly place WHs in that scale.

Guess what, the huge majority of these photocopy nerf threads revolve the second least risk area inhabitants only thinking about themselves as some sort of "better than others", forget (or even screw) everybody else.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#182 - 2013-03-06 14:07:15 UTC
You're neglecting to take into account the huge investment of ISK, time and effort to secure that security in sov space. It doesn't just happen by itself. And it's still less secure than hi-sec.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Goldnut Sachs
#183 - 2013-03-06 14:08:02 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Fearghaz Tiwas wrote:
Actually, you have. What I suggested would help all areas outside of trade hubs. Probably most benefiting Hi sec, followed by low. Admittedly, it might not help NPC null as much as Sov, but it would help. Highsec should pay for protection in the form of taxes on the buying and selling of items, at higher rates depending on the sec status.


If there's to be a revolution of how EvE works it has to be well planned and all encompassing (the current model is all encompassing).
As such if we really have to dumb down EvE enough to provide a predictable and canned reward = f(risk), then a priority has to be done about where risk is the highest and give the top buff in there.

Regardless whether hi sec has to be nerfed or not, in the end the reward = f(risk) profile should be:

hi sec (lowest) => sov sec => low sec => WH => NPC null sec, with some more thought about where to exactly place WHs in that scale.

Guess what, the huge majority of these photocopy nerf threads revolve the second least risk area inhabitants only thinking about themselves as some sort of "better than others", forget (or even screw) everybody else.

i am sorry Frying Doom, this here is the tl;dr don't nerf highsec or see eve die.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#184 - 2013-03-06 14:08:05 UTC
Malcanis wrote:

Apples to Oranges? Apart from CONCORD, what's the difference between lo-sec and hi-sec so far as an industrialist is concerned?

EDIT: Are you counting me as a nullseccer? If so, look at page 3 of this very thread:

Malcanis wrote:

It would be good if productive activities were viable in all zones. Ideally, each zone would be dominant in one speciality, and co-equal in the others. Eg: Hi-sec might become easily the best place for invention, but then 0.0 should be definitely superior for eg: T2 production, and so on.


So now you've seen one. What now?


It's not my fault I reply to certain people and you, uncalled, put yourself in the middle.

I was not considering you a null seccer, you are putting your nose in an arguments to them.

And frankly, if you can't see the ripple effects of your own law applied to the game modifications being demanded, I have nothing else to say.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#185 - 2013-03-06 14:09:07 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
You're neglecting to take into account the huge investment of ISK, time and effort to secure that security in sov space. It doesn't just happen by itself. And it's still less secure than hi-sec.


Being able to shape your own empire is the reward, not a cost. If you don't like that ability, nothing forces you to embark into it.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#186 - 2013-03-06 14:10:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Buzzy Warstl
Malcanis wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:

If the market grows to the point where the jump freighter pilots have trouble keeping up, then nullsec might need a buff to industry, but I just really don't see that happening without the addition of a lot of scalable content to nullsec that doesn't seem to be in the works.


Perhaps that might be something to do with the fact that so many "0.0 players" actually keep more characters in hi-sec than they do in their own space?

Maybe because there just isn't enough to do in sovereign nullsec, even without industry entering the equation.

NPC space (high, low and null) offers a richer play experience across the board, without the headaches of structure grinding.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#187 - 2013-03-06 14:11:22 UTC
Goldnut Sachs wrote:


i am sorry Frying Doom, this here is the tl;dr don't nerf highsec or see eve die.


Nah, I just don't share the "let's add more taxes, this will fix everything". I have to deal with this sh!t every day when I see socialist politicians talk in TV.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Fearghaz Tiwas
Perkone
Caldari State
#188 - 2013-03-06 14:12:25 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Fearghaz Tiwas wrote:
Actually, you have. What I suggested would help all areas outside of trade hubs. Probably most benefiting Hi sec, followed by low. Admittedly, it might not help NPC null as much as Sov, but it would help. Highsec should pay for protection in the form of taxes on the buying and selling of items, at higher rates depending on the sec status.


If there's to be a revolution of how EvE works it has to be well planned and all encompassing (the current model is all encompassing).
As such if we really have to dumb down EvE enough to provide a predictable and canned reward = f(risk), then a priority has to be done about where risk is the highest and give the top buff in there.

Regardless whether hi sec has to be nerfed or not, in the end the reward = f(risk) profile should be:

hi sec (lowest) => sov sec => low sec => WH => NPC null sec, with some more thought about where to exactly place WHs in that scale.

Guess what, the huge majority of these photocopy nerf threads revolve the second least risk area inhabitants only thinking about themselves as some sort of "better than others", forget (or even screw) everybody else.



For a start point then, what do you think of the changes I have suggested? I've always said, it isn't just about "nerfing" high sec. The current way it is makes no sense. The income that market traders make is obscene. There is no risk in hi sec, and whatever you say, sov null is still a lot more risk, and needs a lot more effort than it too. There is simply no reason to not stay in high. This is a problem. CCP did not give us this great sandbox for us to not use all of the space available. Not 4 systems in high sec.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#189 - 2013-03-06 14:14:04 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:


And frankly, if you can't see the ripple effects of your own law applied to the game modifications being demanded, I have nothing else to say.


My Law concerns the effects of special privileges. And, indeed, the effects of the massive special privileges granted to hi-sec producers definitely provide a good example.

Oh but wait wait I'm forgetting that we have to reduce the effects of those privileges vvvveeerrrrryyy sssssllllloooowwwlllllyyyy or the beneficiaries of those privileges won't be able to maintain their status. What a catastrophe that would be.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Fearghaz Tiwas
Perkone
Caldari State
#190 - 2013-03-06 14:14:27 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Goldnut Sachs wrote:


i am sorry Frying Doom, this here is the tl;dr don't nerf highsec or see eve die.


Nah, I just don't share the "let's add more taxes, this will fix everything". I have to deal with this sh!t every day when I see socialist politicians talk in TV.



That statement has explained a lot. Ah well. Clearly taxes wont solve everything, but I think its a pretty simple way to start addressing the issue
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#191 - 2013-03-06 14:16:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Kidd
baltec1 wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
Primary Me wrote:


A factor or question that has come up a number of times, but then lost in the depths of economic arguments, is whether nullsec should be on par or better than hisec for industry, which, thinking about it, is a question that needs to be answered first, before discussing any balancing that might need to be done.



Null industry has the potential to be as good as, or better, than high sec right now. No changes are needed.

The problem is not with the mechanics. It's with the people who choose to live there. They are just not the type that want to settle in and actually set up an industrial base. They want to shoot stuff.

If they insist on whining that it is somehow easier in high sec then they should move there and stop flooding the forum with tears. For a bunch of elite PVP Gods, they sure spend a lot of time crying over having to make something of themselves in the area of the game that does nothing to hold their hands.

Null is what you make it guys. If you can't make it, then move back to high sec and stop your bellyaching.

Mr Epeen Cool


It is currently impossible to make null sec industry competable with high sec.


No, you're wrong. It is possible to make null competitive with HS. Nothing is stopping you from building the production facilities using POS's. Null has better resources. Null has better everything. What it doesn't have is safe travel with the ability to move large amounts of material relatively risk free. And because nullsec alliances suffer from meglomania and everyone else there is so bored they'd shoot their mother, it's never going to be that kind of place which is aka hisec.

Don't ban me, bro!
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#192 - 2013-03-06 14:17:14 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:

If the market grows to the point where the jump freighter pilots have trouble keeping up, then nullsec might need a buff to industry, but I just really don't see that happening without the addition of a lot of scalable content to nullsec that doesn't seem to be in the works.


Perhaps that might be something to do with the fact that so many "0.0 players" actually keep more characters in hi-sec than they do in their own space?

Maybe because there just isn't enough to do in sovereign nullsec, even without industry entering the equation.

NPC space (high, low and null) offers a richer play experience across the board, without the headaches of structure grinding.


It's too hard to do 1 + 1.

When I lived in null sec I had my hi sec alts including a perfectly identical pilot to this character. Why? Because industry argument is irrelevant, in the end when you want to just log in and do "something" and there are no particular corp FCs online (most of the day till prime time) then one might want to just play without all the encumberance of having to scout, having to permanently stay on voice comm (listening to TV or music is good), having to find 4-5 people just to leave the station and move around. Then hi sec is the perfect place to d!ck around before "serious business" starts in the corp.
That's why I and many others have hi sec alts, to have a "slack" version of their gameplay to relax from the important internet spaceships business due at 8pm.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#193 - 2013-03-06 14:18:41 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
You're neglecting to take into account the huge investment of ISK, time and effort to secure that security in sov space. It doesn't just happen by itself. And it's still less secure than hi-sec.



Differently secure. There are elements which are higher security.

At least in part.

Sure, you can be freely attacked in null.

But your attackers can't idle around with Concord protection, to get everyone in place. You can have security on a mining operation that isn't just there for mop up. (can is the important word, really)


And neuts being rare (as in, not normal) in sov null means you have an immediate reason to POS up. rather than wondering if it's a ganker or just someone passing through.


You're right that it takes a huge investment of time to secure though.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#194 - 2013-03-06 14:20:06 UTC
Fearghaz Tiwas wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Goldnut Sachs wrote:


i am sorry Frying Doom, this here is the tl;dr don't nerf highsec or see eve die.


Nah, I just don't share the "let's add more taxes, this will fix everything". I have to deal with this sh!t every day when I see socialist politicians talk in TV.



That statement has explained a lot. Ah well. Clearly taxes wont solve everything, but I think its a pretty simple way to start addressing the issue



It also has the added benefit of stripping some isk from the game.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#195 - 2013-03-06 14:20:40 UTC
Fearghaz Tiwas wrote:

For a start point then, what do you think of the changes I have suggested? I've always said, it isn't just about "nerfing" high sec. The current way it is makes no sense. The income that market traders make is obscene. There is no risk in hi sec, and whatever you say, sov null is still a lot more risk, and needs a lot more effort than it too. There is simply no reason to not stay in high. This is a problem. CCP did not give us this great sandbox for us to not use all of the space available. Not 4 systems in high sec.


What I think? That hi sec is a flawed stepping stone and the whole game is adversely affected by it, and it should be removed and replaced with a smooth degree of risky-ness. From full hi sec enforced only on new players starting systems down to -1.0 with a series of gradual changes, so everybody can actively pick their "grade" of risk vs reward.

If we have to alter the whole game, we may as well change it for the better, and not just flip the current "compartiments" around, which still keeps the awful compartiments philosophy alive.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Fearghaz Tiwas
Perkone
Caldari State
#196 - 2013-03-06 14:21:11 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:

If the market grows to the point where the jump freighter pilots have trouble keeping up, then nullsec might need a buff to industry, but I just really don't see that happening without the addition of a lot of scalable content to nullsec that doesn't seem to be in the works.


Perhaps that might be something to do with the fact that so many "0.0 players" actually keep more characters in hi-sec than they do in their own space?

Maybe because there just isn't enough to do in sovereign nullsec, even without industry entering the equation.

NPC space (high, low and null) offers a richer play experience across the board, without the headaches of structure grinding.


It's too hard to do 1 + 1.

When I lived in null sec I had my hi sec alts including a perfectly identical pilot to this character. Why? Because industry argument is irrelevant, in the end when you want to just log in and do "something" and there are no particular corp FCs online (most of the day till prime time) then one might want to just play without all the encumberance of having to scout, having to permanently stay on voice comm (listening to TV or music is good), having to find 4-5 people just to leave the station and move around. Then hi sec is the perfect place to d!ck around before "serious business" starts in the corp.
That's why I and many others have hi sec alts, to have a "slack" version of their gameplay to relax from the important internet spaceships business due at 8pm.


Yeah, nothing wrong with that. The point is, it should be worthwhile trying to sort out getting those 4-5 people together. At present, it's a massive ball drag for minimal benefit.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#197 - 2013-03-06 14:22:32 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:


And frankly, if you can't see the ripple effects of your own law applied to the game modifications being demanded, I have nothing else to say.


My Law concerns the effects of special privileges. And, indeed, the effects of the massive special privileges granted to hi-sec producers definitely provide a good example.

Oh but wait wait I'm forgetting that we have to reduce the effects of those privileges vvvveeerrrrryyy sssssllllloooowwwlllllyyyy or the beneficiaries of those privileges won't be able to maintain their status. What a catastrophe that would be.


No, your are forgetting the corollary to your own law: that nerfing something to hurt the "vets" is going to massively impair the new players.

What once you i.e. reduce hi sec refinery down to null sec value? Guess what, those old enough won't give a crap, they have skills and implants, the weaker players get the bone.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#198 - 2013-03-06 14:24:14 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Fearghaz Tiwas wrote:

For a start point then, what do you think of the changes I have suggested? I've always said, it isn't just about "nerfing" high sec. The current way it is makes no sense. The income that market traders make is obscene. There is no risk in hi sec, and whatever you say, sov null is still a lot more risk, and needs a lot more effort than it too. There is simply no reason to not stay in high. This is a problem. CCP did not give us this great sandbox for us to not use all of the space available. Not 4 systems in high sec.


What I think? That hi sec is a flawed stepping stone and the whole game is adversely affected by it, and it should be removed and replaced with a smooth degree of risky-ness. From full hi sec enforced only on new players starting systems down to -1.0 with a series of gradual changes, so everybody can actively pick their "grade" of risk vs reward.

If we have to alter the whole game, we may as well change it for the better, and not just flip the current "compartiments" around, which still keeps the awful compartiments philosophy alive.


That's a familiar concept from somewhere....

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Fearghaz Tiwas
Perkone
Caldari State
#199 - 2013-03-06 14:24:38 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Fearghaz Tiwas wrote:

For a start point then, what do you think of the changes I have suggested? I've always said, it isn't just about "nerfing" high sec. The current way it is makes no sense. The income that market traders make is obscene. There is no risk in hi sec, and whatever you say, sov null is still a lot more risk, and needs a lot more effort than it too. There is simply no reason to not stay in high. This is a problem. CCP did not give us this great sandbox for us to not use all of the space available. Not 4 systems in high sec.


What I think? That hi sec is a flawed stepping stone and the whole game is adversely affected by it, and it should be removed and replaced with a smooth degree of risky-ness. From full hi sec enforced only on new players starting systems down to -1.0 with a series of gradual changes, so everybody can actively pick their "grade" of risk vs reward.

If we have to alter the whole game, we may as well change it for the better, and not just flip the current "compartiments" around, which still keeps the awful compartiments philosophy alive.


TBF mate, you've gone a long way to redeem yourself in my eyes with that. From the discussion so far I had come to the (apparently false) conclusion that you were just a dont touch my hisec bear. Would you like to expand on how a 1.0 system might be different to a 0.7 system? I agree with you, that Hi sec is indeed a flawed stepping stone, it's just I want people who do decide to jump off to not feel like they need to climb back onto it.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#200 - 2013-03-06 14:25:21 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:


And frankly, if you can't see the ripple effects of your own law applied to the game modifications being demanded, I have nothing else to say.


My Law concerns the effects of special privileges. And, indeed, the effects of the massive special privileges granted to hi-sec producers definitely provide a good example.

Oh but wait wait I'm forgetting that we have to reduce the effects of those privileges vvvveeerrrrryyy sssssllllloooowwwlllllyyyy or the beneficiaries of those privileges won't be able to maintain their status. What a catastrophe that would be.


No, your are forgetting the corollary to your own law: that nerfing something to hurt the "vets" is going to massively impair the new players.

What once you i.e. reduce hi sec refinery down to null sec value? Guess what, those old enough won't give a crap, they have skills and implants, the weaker players get the bone.


So it's fine for weaker players in 0.0 to "get the bone", because it's only a problem when that happens in hi-sec?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016