These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

What would happen if CCP finally nerfed hisec?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
ashley Eoner
#2481 - 2014-02-06 01:23:56 UTC
Tippia wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
Because they just spent +120 pages complaining about how highsec has it so much better because of SOE missions.
No.
They spend 120+ pages complaining about how highsec has it so much better in one specific, and obligatory area that they'd all prefer to avoid if it weren't unavoidable in order to do the things they would like to do.

Quote:
Why not just embrace the option then because clearly null has no rewards worthy of fighting for when it's obvious 130 pages later that highsec is the bestest place.
Because no-one has actually claimed that. That's just an association fallacy on your part.

Quote:
So just leave null then. Since it's so terrible and worthless. That would get CCP's attention.
They already have. Didn't you get that part?

EXCEPt the "RISK VS REWARD" chant that has appeared several times in this thread ignores all the rewards except for mission running. So clearly since the only reward that matters is on an individual personal financial level then there's no reason to stay in null.
ashley Eoner
#2482 - 2014-02-06 01:26:43 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:

Then why are you in null if it's so terrible?

You know what would get CCP's attention? If your alliance abandoned null and started blitzing level 4s in apanake.


The goons could also stage a mission interdiction mission where they gank the crap out of missioners which would actually be profitable.

You could also advertise to newbies the money to be made so that way no one makes the big isk.


The bolded part, I do these things its not nearly as profitable as you think. Its also not nearly as common as you think.
SO you're desperately trying to disagree without actually disagreeing. I didn't say tremendously profitable I said profitable. Didn't you guys claim the ice thing made a difference? At least with the ice the people had many systems to chose from for blitzers they have only one agent to choose from. That should make it easier to be profitable about it.

I go by what I see in my area of space during my play time. That's the only facts I've brought to the table when it came to gankers. I'm not linking to kill boards or 24 hour listings. Just personal experience when I have time to run missions.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2483 - 2014-02-06 01:27:29 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:

EXCEPt the "RISK VS REWARD" chant that has appeared several times in this thread ignores all the rewards except for mission running. So clearly since the only reward that matters is on an individual personal financial level then there's no reason to stay in null.


FFS ar you really that dense?

What part of "we don't like mission running, or anom farming" is hard for you.
ashley Eoner
#2484 - 2014-02-06 01:28:42 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
You're telling me that with all the sources of income including the mighty goo and rentals that all of Goonswarm relies solely on anom runners and ratters to fund their war machine?

Really?


So why are you in null then?


Moon goo and rental income is alliance level income not individual pilot income.

Which should be covering the fights as mentioned earlier.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2485 - 2014-02-06 01:28:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Onictus
ashley Eoner wrote:


I go by what I see in my area of space during my play time. That's the only facts I've brought to the table when it came to gankers. I'm not linking to kill boards or 24 hour listings. Just personal experience when I have time to run missions.



The hilarious part is that I have lost exactly ONE mission ship even, and they didn't pay for thier thrashers from the drop.

ashley Eoner wrote:

Which should be covering the fights as mentioned earlier.[/quote]

No its ALLIANCE income.
1)SRP.... you usually have to buy your ships anyway. Take the CFC TFI, I paid for it and COULDN'T lose the ******* thing. I'm now stuck with that hull I have to sell it, same with a LARGE number of other doctrine ships that I have to have and may or may not lose on the alliance dime. Now while we are at it B-R the CFC and RUSRUS lost 16 titans at a nominal value of 120 billion per hull the alliances are on the hook for that. Snig ALONE took 4.5 TRILLION isk hammering.

Oh and my the by by, the alliances aren't handing out Titans and Supers to people, with the exception of block level fleet FCs, no one gets handed a titan.

2) POS fuels ever fuel a large POS? It takes just under a bill a month to fuel a large POS, no multiply that times a jump bridge network, AND applicable moon mining towers....and THEN multiple that buy a couple orders of magnitude during wartime with cyno jammers, constant stront after RF cycles, and replacing blown to hell guns, harvesters

3) SOV bills, for a system you pay 180mil a month for the TCU, 300 mil for a JB 60mil for a cyno (aka gank me) becon and/or 600mil for a cyno jammer.....and you usually jam CSAA systems....by the by that is a 30 mil a month for the CSAA existing.

Per system

4) General ****. Ever try to get +3,000 people to load their **** and haul it completely across the map for a war, ever notice that capital fuels tend to run in the 800-900isk/unit range. Yeah, my carrier has about 60,000 units of topes in it right now, and the alliance likely paid for most of it via capital ops (general triage type work) and move OPs. That is 16 mil per fuel load per character....and you may use say three loads running from say AF0 to home for whatever reason.....and I've seen move ops that were multiple 256man fleets of carriers....all paid by the allainces.

That is why allaince and personal income are separate. We aren't getting bond payments out here, the alliance itself has **** to deal with.
ashley Eoner
#2486 - 2014-02-06 01:29:29 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Onictus wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:

EXCEPt the "RISK VS REWARD" chant that has appeared several times in this thread ignores all the rewards except for mission running. So clearly since the only reward that matters is on an individual personal financial level then there's no reason to stay in null.


FFS ar you really that dense?

What part of "we don't like mission running, or anom farming" is hard for you.
So you want everything handed to you then? Damned the consequences to the economy or the ability for individuals to exploit it?

You realize the reason they nerfed it in the first place right? Faucet hello?
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#2487 - 2014-02-06 01:34:40 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
So just leave null then. Since it's so terrible and worthless. That would get CCP's attention.


Why did I read this response and hear my ex-wife's voice in my head?

Null isn't terrible. High Sec is just so good it makes mroe sense to "live" there and have fun in null (or low or wormholes). You can get mad at us for telling you this truth but it doesn't change facts.
ashley Eoner
#2488 - 2014-02-06 01:35:55 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Jenn aSide wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
So just leave null then. Since it's so terrible and worthless. That would get CCP's attention.


Why did I read this response and hear my ex-wife's voice in my head?

Null isn't terrible. High Sec is just so good it makes mroe sense to "live" there and have fun in null (or low or wormholes). You can get mad at us for telling you this truth but it doesn't change facts.

Then why don't you move? If you and the others truly believe what you say then no one would be in null and CCP would be forced into "fixing" it.



I just feel terrible for those poor people who lost their titans in that recent fight. It'll take them a year at least to grind out the isk at 40m an hour to buy a replacement.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#2489 - 2014-02-06 01:35:58 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
SO you're desperately trying to disagree without actually disagreeing. I didn't say tremendously profitable I said profitable. Didn't you guys claim the ice thing made a difference? At least with the ice the people had many systems to chose from for blitzers they have only one agent to choose from. That should make it easier to be profitable about it.

I go by what I see in my area of space during my play time. That's the only facts I've brought to the table when it came to gankers. I'm not linking to kill boards or 24 hour listings. Just personal experience when I have time to run missions.


The ice interdiction was a massive market manipulation event. Ganking missions runners on mass will only result in us losing large amounts of isk for no gain.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2490 - 2014-02-06 01:36:53 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:

EXCEPt the "RISK VS REWARD" chant that has appeared several times in this thread ignores all the rewards except for mission running. So clearly since the only reward that matters is on an individual personal financial level then there's no reason to stay in null.



That is because we are isolating mid-range combat PVE and comparing the two. We are comparing individual incomes and not alliance incomes as well. Which brings a point that this problem will have to be addressed before switching over to a "bottom up/farms and fields" style of alliance income instead of the current "top down" style of alliance income.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#2491 - 2014-02-06 01:37:03 UTC
Onictus wrote:


......again with the fingers in your ears.

Per usual completely missing the point.


That's your typiccal high sec poster for you. Just as they live in a part of space that lets them ignore the realites of the game (thanks CONCORD, crime wach and npc corps) so is it on the forums, nothing uncomfortable (like honesty) matters.
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#2492 - 2014-02-06 01:37:05 UTC  |  Edited by: PotatoOverdose
Why should one group of burger flippers get payed more than another group of burger flippers? Whether you're running level 4's in a Raven, or running low end anomalies in an Ishtar, you're shooting the same exact red crosses (more or less).

There are high end anomalies in nullsec that are far more difficult than any mission in highsec, the kind of anomaly with a citadel torpedo of death at the end. Those sites are genuinely harder, require more effort and coordination, but also have a much higher payout.

I could get behind a change that made nullsec either have more high end sites, or make current low end sites harder/more rewarding.

But I think it's utterly dumb to nerf/buff one particular group of carebears over another group of carebears when both groups are doing the exact same thing.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#2493 - 2014-02-06 01:38:14 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
Then why don't you move?


We have. Most of us make our isk in high sec missions over running null anoms.
ashley Eoner
#2494 - 2014-02-06 01:38:16 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
SO you're desperately trying to disagree without actually disagreeing. I didn't say tremendously profitable I said profitable. Didn't you guys claim the ice thing made a difference? At least with the ice the people had many systems to chose from for blitzers they have only one agent to choose from. That should make it easier to be profitable about it.

I go by what I see in my area of space during my play time. That's the only facts I've brought to the table when it came to gankers. I'm not linking to kill boards or 24 hour listings. Just personal experience when I have time to run missions.


The ice interdiction was a massive market manipulation event. Ganking missions runners on mass will only result in us losing large amounts of isk for no gain.
You just have to be picky about which ones you pop if you want profit. You could easily lock down SOE mission running and it'd be glorious. I'm actually quite serious about this and if I didn't have more important stuff to do I'd consider doing it myself.
ashley Eoner
#2495 - 2014-02-06 01:39:02 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
Then why don't you move?


We have. Most of us make our isk in high sec missions over running null anoms.

That's funny I still see SOV showing something else.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#2496 - 2014-02-06 01:39:11 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:

EXCEPt the "RISK VS REWARD" chant that has appeared several times in this thread ignores all the rewards except for mission running. So clearly since the only reward that matters is on an individual personal financial level then there's no reason to stay in null.



That is because we are isolating mid-range combat PVE and comparing the two. We are comparing individual incomes and not alliance incomes as well. Which brings a point that this problem will have to be addressed before switching over to a "bottom up/farms and fields" style of alliance income instead of the current "top down" style of alliance income.


Watching you interact with that guy is like watching the Federal Reserve Chairman debate fiscal policy with a Wal-mart cashier.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#2497 - 2014-02-06 01:39:52 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:


Which should be covering the fights as mentioned earlier.


It doesn't. For example, all of my mega do not come under the fleet replacement categories.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#2498 - 2014-02-06 01:39:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
ashley Eoner wrote:
EXCEPt the "RISK VS REWARD" chant that has appeared several times in this thread ignores all the rewards except for mission running.
No, they really don't, and no, that's not an exception to what I just said.

Again, if they could, they'd live 100% in null — earning and wasting money there. As it is currently set up, that's a hugely stupid idea since the effort (short-handed “risk”) required to get to the fun part is massively increased compared to if you just did the obligatory parts in highsec.

You are making the ridiculously idiotic assumption that just because one particular reward — which isn't actually a reward in and of itself by rather an intermediary mechanism for reaching the actual rewards — is better in highsec, everything is better in high so they should “obviously” want to be there. You're ignoring the fact that it's just intermediary; you're ignoring the fact that the actual rewards are not worth both the risks associated with the rewards themselves and the risks associated with the intermediary; and you're ignoring the fact that the intermediary is currently obligatory.

So why on earth would they want to completely move to highsec when it doesn't offer the actual rewards, when the problem is with the intermediary they'd rather avoid altogether and the completely lopsided risk-reward relationship this mandatory part has?

Quote:
So clearly since the only reward that matters is on an individual personal financial level then there's no reason to stay in null.
…except that this is just some nonsensical strawman you've invented out of intellectual dishonesty because you're too lazy to figure out what the actual reward structures are that people are talking about.

Quote:
That's funny I still see SOV showing something else.
Actually, the funny part is that sov doesn't show that in any way, so you're obviously just making things up.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#2499 - 2014-02-06 01:40:07 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
Then why don't you move?


We have. Most of us make our isk in high sec missions over running null anoms.

That's funny I still see SOV showing something else.


Are you the typcial solo player who doesn't understand the idea of Alts?
ashley Eoner
#2500 - 2014-02-06 01:40:31 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Why should one group of burger flippers get payed more than another group of burger flippers? Whether you're running level 4's in a Raven, or running low end anomalies in an Ishtar, you're shooting the same exact red crosses (more or less).

There are high end anomalies in nullsec that are far more difficult than any mission in highsec, the kind of anomaly with a citadel torpedo of death at the end. Those sites are genuinely harder, require more effort and coordination, but also have a much higher payout.

I could get behind a change that made nullsec either have more high end sites, or make current low end sites harder/more rewarding.

But I think it's utterly dumb to nerf/buff one particular group of carebears over another group of carebears when both groups are doing the exact same thing.
The issue is those sights were far too powerful of a faucet so CCP was forced into nerfing the situation to try to get the flow under control. Some sort of increased payout via a LP like scheme would be a better idea in my view.