These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why complain about High Sec but not SOV mechanics? An honest look at null bears.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#241 - 2013-03-12 19:14:16 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Simple answer: because there is more than one problem with eve atm. Yeah SOV mechanics are bad but highsec also needs a nerf.


Why do you want CCP to go bankrupt?
Lapine Davion
Outer Ring Applied Logistics
#242 - 2013-03-12 19:21:06 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
Simple answer: because there is more than one problem with eve atm. Yeah SOV mechanics are bad but highsec also needs a nerf.


Why do you want CCP to go bankrupt?


"A nerf" is a far cry from "nerfed into the ground."

Why should people be able to anchor POs in HS for pennies in NPC controlled safety? Why should folks be able to get perfect refines and great manufacturing in the same station for super cheap, while player controlled space (the big draw of the game) gets the shaft?

[b]Don't worry about posting with your main!  Post with your brain! "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."[/b]
Sariah Kion
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#243 - 2013-03-12 19:33:36 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
When I see rants like the OP, it makes me wonder what he would prefer?

Weeks of grinding complexes, only to have everything you do to gain sov, undone as soon as you go to bed?

Having to play a different game to take sov?

Some kind of PVP scorecard, that can be easily manipulated by blowing up my own alts?




I think people have different visions of what sov should be for.

It seems from his gf comment, he thinks sov mechanics should encourage lots of small gang, fairly balanced, where skill of the player wins, fights.

He rants that sov is about capturing valuable stuff and then protecting it. Well to others, EVE is not about small gang, fairly balanced, where skill wins the fight, ship to ship PVP. For some of these people, EVE is about gathering as many friends as possible, into a big, powerful blob, with massive advantage, and crushing your enemy, to capture and hold valuable resources.

What you want from EVE is not what everyone wants from EVE. Perhaps, rather than lamenting that null sov warefare is not what you wish it were, perhaps you should go look for what you are looking for, in another area of EVE.



And finally, if null could not be made fairly safe and profitably so, then null would be just like low sec... mostly empty with the occasional pirate camp or random roam. Most of the small % of the player base that does live in null, is only there because it can be safe to be there.


You completely missed the point because you failed to see the context in which this was written as well as what it was supposed to foil.

[b]Librarian and Exotic Dancer Extraordinaire Champion of the Working Men and Women of Empire Space Anti-Null Sec Opium Den Movement President[/b] Not the woman high sec wants but the Woman high sec needs. [u]A modern girl for a modern world.[/u]
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#244 - 2013-03-12 19:35:14 UTC
Lapine Davion wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
Simple answer: because there is more than one problem with eve atm. Yeah SOV mechanics are bad but highsec also needs a nerf.


Why do you want CCP to go bankrupt?


"A nerf" is a far cry from "nerfed into the ground."

Why should people be able to anchor POs in HS for pennies in NPC controlled safety? Why should folks be able to get perfect refines and great manufacturing in the same station for super cheap, while player controlled space (the big draw of the game) gets the shaft?



1) Because they spent a ton of effort grinding standings to be able to place that POS. AND, the cost of running a POS is more in high sec than in 0.0.

2) a nerf of high sec refine.. say 25% or less, would probably be acceptable. The rest of your post is about buff to null (better refine and more slots), so call it that. A better buff to null would be to greatly increase the amount of trit and mex that you get from high end rocks to end that mega bottleneck to null production.
Lapine Davion
Outer Ring Applied Logistics
#245 - 2013-03-12 19:39:32 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Lapine Davion wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
Simple answer: because there is more than one problem with eve atm. Yeah SOV mechanics are bad but highsec also needs a nerf.


Why do you want CCP to go bankrupt?


"A nerf" is a far cry from "nerfed into the ground."

Why should people be able to anchor POs in HS for pennies in NPC controlled safety? Why should folks be able to get perfect refines and great manufacturing in the same station for super cheap, while player controlled space (the big draw of the game) gets the shaft?



1) Because they spent a ton of effort grinding standings to be able to place that POS. AND, the cost of running a POS is more in high sec than in 0.0.

2) a nerf of high sec refine.. say 25% or less, would probably be acceptable. The rest of your post is about buff to null (better refine and more slots), so call it that. A better buff to null would be to greatly increase the amount of trit and mex that you get from high end rocks to end that mega bottleneck to null production.



How is hiring a dude with the right standings to drop a POS considered "a ton of effort". The tax for a high sec POS is a starbase charter that costs as much as an L3 mission.

[b]Don't worry about posting with your main!  Post with your brain! "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."[/b]
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#246 - 2013-03-12 19:39:54 UTC
Sariah Kion wrote:
You completely missed the point because you failed to see the context in which this was written as well as what it was supposed to foil.



Then enlighten, because all this high sec carebear saw in the OP was:

Whhaaa no good fights.

Whaaaa blobs.

Whaaaaa blue donut.

Whaaaaa null bears too safe.

Whaaaaaaa forum PvP.
Cazador 64
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#247 - 2013-03-12 19:41:58 UTC
Andski wrote:
you're still wrong and you haven't "stirred" any snakes, we just smelled the blood in the water

please continue being wrong because your cashout potential from this game is being threatened

I do not play eve enough to even care about this, but this should follow up with a you're still wrong because (insert Logical argument here) and you haven't stirred and snakes because(Insert other argument), we just smelled the blood in the water.

I am not picking sides here(again because i do not care) but you simply posting no your wrong only makes it look like
you can not refute what the op has said.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#248 - 2013-03-12 19:47:18 UTC
Lapine Davion wrote:

How is hiring a dude with the right standings to drop a POS considered "a ton of effort". The tax for a high sec POS is a starbase charter that costs as much as an L3 mission.


That "dude" did a lot of work to grind standings, then you have to reform the corp around a new corp he creates, or kick everyone for a few days. Or are you just ranting that players have discovered a mechanic that reduces the number of players that have to do the grind?

And, then, when they decide they want to relocate, or put down another POS or... well, they have to do it all again.



So, you are admitting that high sec POSes cost more than anywhere else? Because the first time you mentioned it... "Why should people be able to anchor POs in HS for pennies in NPC controlled safety?" it seemed you were implying that high sec POSes were cheaper than other locations.

And, do not forget about the 25% fuel discount you get on POS if you hold sov in a system.
Sariah Kion
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#249 - 2013-03-12 19:47:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Sariah Kion
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Sariah Kion wrote:
You completely missed the point because you failed to see the context in which this was written as well as what it was supposed to foil.



Then enlighten, because all this high sec carebear saw in the OP was:

Whhaaa no good fights.

Whaaaa blobs.

Whaaaaa blue donut.

Whaaaaa null bears too safe.

Whaaaaaaa forum PvP.


I don't care about any of those issues honestly and I am surely not "crying" over them.

The point is that before null sec SOV dwellers push for nerfs to high sec in the name of "saving the sandbox and to promote good pvp" they need to address the real issues that have caused sov null to become the lifeless hulk it has become.

Not sure if you have been under a rock or willfully chose to ignore the flood of SOV alliance dwellers pushing for the outright destruction of high sec as we know it because they think, or are willfully trying to spin the issues because they want to hold onto their risk free isk spigots and push even more isk and power out of high sec and into their hands, that high sec in its current state is the cause of all that ails pvp in null sec.

Either way, you missed the point completely and thats ok. No worries.

[b]Librarian and Exotic Dancer Extraordinaire Champion of the Working Men and Women of Empire Space Anti-Null Sec Opium Den Movement President[/b] Not the woman high sec wants but the Woman high sec needs. [u]A modern girl for a modern world.[/u]
Cazador 64
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#250 - 2013-03-12 19:48:29 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
(good stuff)



Nerf hisec ores (Veld, Scord, Omber, etc). Simplest way is a -10% and -5% variant (it still doesn't come close to fixing the problem ... but it's a start). With this, instead of getting "Veldspar", "Condensed Veldspar", or "Dense Veldspar" in a 0.5 system, you'll be getting mostly "Scattered Veldspar" (-10%) and "Sparse Veldspar" (-5%) with a few rocks of "Veldspar" here and there.

Scarcity of "Veldspar" would be on par with how "Dense Veldspar" curently is (IIRC, it doesn't start showing up until 0.8, and you're lucky to find it there).

Once you hit lowsec, repeat with the current progression from 0.8-0.5

0.4 -- Mostly Veld, some conc, little dense (don't even bother with the hisec ores)
0.1 -- pretty much looks like a 0.5 belt does (about equal amounts of veld/conc veld, with a good amount of dense)

Do this for all hisec ores.
Lowsec ores don't change much ... maybe tweak the numbers a bit on their yields.
Nullsec ores don't change much ... maybe tweak the numbers on the more useless yields.

we "might" need more lowsec, as there may not be enough 0.2/0.1 systems to make this work right.

To counter the whining before it's posted:
But now I have to go to lowsec to mine what I used to be able to mine here!!! -- yes, and?
But now mining in hisec sucks!!! -- little risk, little reward.
But now CONCORD won't kill those nasty gankers! -- fleet up, make your own police force -- hell, maybe you can kill the guy BEFORE he kills the miner(s).
But now everything's gonna be more expensive!!! -- HTFU
Think of the newbies! -- they can tackle, right? Seriously though, this isn't going to be game-breaking for them too much, yeah expensive things will hurt them for a while ... but missions and everything else pay out fairly well.


no
EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#251 - 2013-03-12 19:50:09 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:


2) a nerf of high sec refine.. say 25% or less, would probably be acceptable.


So you agree that highsec can be nerfed fairly without destroying the game.

Welcome aboard!
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#252 - 2013-03-12 19:54:30 UTC
Sariah Kion wrote:


Not sure if you have been under a rock or willfully chose to ignore the flood of SOV alliance dwellers pushing for the outright destruction of high sec as we know it because they think, or are continuously trying to spin the issues because they want to hold onto their risk free isk spigots and push even more isk and power out of high sec and into their hands, that high sec in its current state is the cause of all that ails pvp in null sec.

Either way, you missed the point completely and thats ok. No worries.



Perhaps you should have, oh, I don't know... mentioned some of this in the OP.

Yes, I've seen all the calls for "nerf high sec", and been a pretty vocal opponent of that effort. Why? Because I don't see it achieving anything other than a drastic reduction in the number of subscriptions, and a rapid reversal by CCP to stop the crashing revenue. More importantly, I think CCP realizes what a HUGE percentage of the player base are high sec carebears, and this is why all these rants to nerf high sec will continue to go largely ignored by CCP.

So, if you have a point to make, perhaps you could simply try to make the point, instead of ranting back at the ranters... because I sure didn't see any logical cogent argument or other real point to your OP.
Sariah Kion
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#253 - 2013-03-12 19:59:00 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Sariah Kion wrote:


Not sure if you have been under a rock or willfully chose to ignore the flood of SOV alliance dwellers pushing for the outright destruction of high sec as we know it because they think, or are continuously trying to spin the issues because they want to hold onto their risk free isk spigots and push even more isk and power out of high sec and into their hands, that high sec in its current state is the cause of all that ails pvp in null sec.

Either way, you missed the point completely and thats ok. No worries.



Perhaps you should have, oh, I don't know... mentioned some of this in the OP.

Yes, I've seen all the calls for "nerf high sec", and been a pretty vocal opponent of that effort. Why? Because I don't see it achieving anything other than a drastic reduction in the number of subscriptions, and a rapid reversal by CCP to stop the crashing revenue. More importantly, I think CCP realizes what a HUGE percentage of the player base are high sec carebears, and this is why all these rants to nerf high sec will continue to go largely ignored by CCP.

So, if you have a point to make, perhaps you could simply try to make the point, instead of ranting back at the ranters... because I sure didn't see any logical cogent argument or other real point to your OP.


Amazing.


Have a nice day.

[b]Librarian and Exotic Dancer Extraordinaire Champion of the Working Men and Women of Empire Space Anti-Null Sec Opium Den Movement President[/b] Not the woman high sec wants but the Woman high sec needs. [u]A modern girl for a modern world.[/u]
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#254 - 2013-03-12 20:07:11 UTC
EI Digin wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:


2) a nerf of high sec refine.. say 25% or less, would probably be acceptable.


So you agree that highsec can be nerfed fairly without destroying the game.

Welcome aboard!



Nerf is such an ambiguous term, isn't it.

11% tax for being in NPC corp is not the same scale of nerf as.. say... moving all L4s to low sec.


I've seen the "nerf high sec" be framed as "stop letting people avoid war by being in NPC corp". That is a definition of nerf high sec that I'd be 100% against since I see it leading to massive griefing, carebears being unable to fund their accounts on PLEX, and massive unsubs.

I've seen it framed as "make it possible to avoid CONCORD" or heck, even "get rid of CONCORD". That is a lot different than, say, a 25% minimum loss on high sec refine.

AND, what would the result of a 25% loss on high sec refine, without a buff to null trit and mex (current bottlenecks to null production of capital ships that consume mass amounts of minerals)? Well, then trit and mex prices would increase, bringing the profitability of high sec mining right back to the pre-nerf levels.

Also, initially, missioning would return to being more profitable than mining. So, I'd park the hulks and jump back into the machs. As miners switched to missioning, mineral production would drop until the price increased to bring the miners back.

On the other hand, a buff to the trit and mex from null would actually be a nerf to high sec mining as the price of those high sec rocks drops without the demand that is generated from null.

SO, while I contend some additional, fairly minor nerfs that may effect profitability short-term, to high sec will not cause mass numbers of carebears to drop, I still contend that a major nerf to game mechanics that make high sec safe, will do just that.

AND, I remain convinced that buffing null IS a nerf to high, and a better way to go about achieving that nerf.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#255 - 2013-03-12 20:09:37 UTC
EI Digin wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:
2) a nerf of high sec refine.. say 25% or less, would probably be acceptable.

So you agree that highsec can be nerfed fairly without destroying the game.

Welcome aboard!

Are you kidding me, all the unsubs from that would ...

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Lapine Davion
Outer Ring Applied Logistics
#256 - 2013-03-12 20:12:20 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
I've seen it framed as "make it possible to avoid CONCORD" or heck, even "get rid of CONCORD". That is a lot different than, say, a 25% minimum loss on high sec refine.


This is the equivalent of Fox News' "Some people say" trope. This tactic is used so that people can show the illusion of a widely held opinion without having to provide a source. It's lazy. Try again, Tarawa.

[b]Don't worry about posting with your main!  Post with your brain! "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."[/b]
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#257 - 2013-03-12 20:16:57 UTC
When you recruit practically everyone in nullsec, to deliberately create a situation where there is nothing to do but shoot structures, you lose the right to call for nerfs in other areas.

As the saying goes, you reap what you sow. Have fun trying to keep your F1 lemmings entertained.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#258 - 2013-03-12 20:24:45 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
EI Digin wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:
2) a nerf of high sec refine.. say 25% or less, would probably be acceptable.

So you agree that highsec can be nerfed fairly without destroying the game.

Welcome aboard!

Are you kidding me, all the unsubs from that would ...


Immediately follow a 25% price increase in high sec ores like trit and mex?
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#259 - 2013-03-12 20:26:34 UTC
Lapine Davion wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:
I've seen it framed as "make it possible to avoid CONCORD" or heck, even "get rid of CONCORD". That is a lot different than, say, a 25% minimum loss on high sec refine.

This is the equivalent of Fox News' "Some people say" trope. This tactic is used so that people can show the illusion of a widely held opinion without having to provide a source. It's lazy. Try again, Tarawa.

Get rid of CONCORD.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Kodama Ikari
Thragon
#260 - 2013-03-12 20:28:09 UTC
OP wrote:
Nullbears do not complain about sov mechanics



5/10 because you have 5 pages of replies.

Some first-hand PI tips