EVE Information Portal

A straw man argument is made when you covertly try to replace an argument with a different argument which is easier for you to argue. The argument being made is clearly that null sec has a large variety of profitable activities. Obviously this is a much harder argument to disagree with and therefore you have chosen to ignore it.



Actually there is an easy comparison for moon mining, goo, reactions, and drug manufacturing. High Sec has a 0 for profitability in these areas and null/low sec have greater than 0 profitability. That is the point being made, that there are activities in null which are strictly more profitable then high sec. Yet again you decide to ignore the argument in order to make a more effective argument for yourself.

The comments for compression ignore CCP's current plans and intentions with ore compression.



Your arguments on mining are interesting, particularly since CCP has tried to buff null sec mining. The sov war losses are often overblown, particularly for massive alliances in their deep blue territory, but at least there is an argument there.



After your massive wall of text you still missed the original point. Urziel99 never claimed that null sec industry was better than high sec. He claimed that many other activities were. The point of the argument is to ask why null sec must also be better in industry if it has so many other good activities. I think it is a valid question, although I am feeling a bit undecided about the answer right now. For me it is obvious that null sec industry should be improved. But should null sec be better at everything? Should null sec be so much better at S&I that only they can produce many items for a profit? Perhaps the answer is yes, but you do not make a convincing argument when you ignore the issues.

I still don't see why nullsec industry should be buffed. Unlimited slots on pos will already give the stations in null a massive bonus, and just how risky is it to manufacture stuff deep in goon space? Or any other large sov alliance? It must be pretty safe there for you to be able to offer out systems to rent otherwise nobody would rent there for fear of losing their investment.



If hisec industry is perceived as risk free and taking so much profit from nullsec then why not gank the afk freighters that are feeding the cycle you describe for risk free industry. The vibrant gameplay you describe as going to nullsec will be at the expense of the other areas. Will you ever transport goods into and out of null when you can just produce and sell them in situ? The gameplay comes from the need to move things around, to gather resources from disparate sources, from having to either defend your resources in null or outperform your competitors in hisec.allowing everything to be done better in null will destroy that dynamic. The large alliances in null will simply get even more rich and even more insular. Will you even bother with burn Jita when you can outperform the trade hubs locally?

The industrial zones you describe in null will kill hisec dead. How could hisec ever compete with nullsec buffed industrial zones? Destroying the dynamic between the security sectiors in this way can only be harmful to the game.

I believe that the S&I changes proposed are needed and look forward to them. I think they will benefit null as much if not more than hisec/losec already. I completely disagree that null needs S&I buffs on top of this. Hisec should remain the S&I centre to encourage the movement of materials players and goods.

Highsec retains its huge volume and safety advantage. Sure, some nullsec producers will be able to outcompete some markets, but the volume nullsec can put out pales in comparison to demand and highsec's current industrial output. Low-cost nullsec goods will barely impact demand at all.

This is my point but put much more succint.

Many activities are already much more profitable in null and rightly so, however each area *needs* something that it is 'best' at to keep the areas competitive and provide reason to move between them. If null is buffed to be so much better at everything then hisec turns into a waiting room for new players marking time until they meet whichever alliances pre-requisites and losec becomes nothing more than a waypoint on the way to said chosen alliance.

rather than buff null in S&I I would actually leave hisec as the S&I powerhouse and buff losec in say moon goo reactions to give losec a reason to exist. As weaselior pointed out this is a game, and each area of thre game serves different playstyles. These should always have a place to exist otherwise you start to exclude groups of players. This can only be bad for the game.

highsec should not be more profitable than null, it should have activities that are at a different place on the risk/reward/effort spectrum

afk mining, afk mission running, trade hub .01isking, all of these things are at a very different point on the risk/reward/effort spectrum and are more 'profitable' than many nullsec activities once you factor in effort (which highseccers never do)

every time you hear someone bleat "but people can gank me in highsec and its harder to gank you in null" they're always, always, always ignoring effort. once you factor in effort the argument evaporates like a fart in the wind.

No, I know this is impossible because the dev's are ignoring this thread, and the null sec cartel propaganda team will fill in all the talking points on behalf of the poor overworked dev's, but I would love for a dev, or dev's, to explain what fallout they expect with these changes, short term and long term.

I assume these changes were not made just purely for the vindictive pleasure of wrecking high sec and low sec manufacturing, nor designed solely to enhance the wallets of those that control null sec station taxes. I assume these changes are being made to increase the subscription rate.

So all you dev's, who I am sure reading all the constructive feedback that phantom requested in the very first post, perhaps one of you can enlighten us on how you see the subscription rate going up with these changes?

no and i don't think you really "get" how balance works

nullsec got no reward for its massive additional effort. now, effort is being curbed some and reward is being increased some. that is exactly as it should be, because the balance was off before

it was unbalanced before, it is being balanced. you seem to be puzzled by how balance works.



you should believe because our arguments are self-evidently correct and have been unrefuted in the years that we've been making them. they stand on their own merit and their blinding correctness, which stands in sharp contrast to the counterarguments of "but...goons!"

Did I hear filling in of talking points?

I haven't commented much in this thread because I feel like only a handful of posters even understand it to this point. So I will break it all down into a few areas. Obviously a lot more happens but they are details in the greater framework of the below.

Some industry (large margin large ISK, large ships) will move to nullsec as the mechanics will allow them to be more profitable than highsec. This doesn't mean they won't be doable at all in highsec however.

Null will consolidate and increase density in economic hubs. Note, Goons had done this long ago but this will enable us to enact some plans done up years ago and further increase density.

Compression just changes form but remains an industry.

Highsec industry won't be as clustered around Jita on an unique pilot basis. However, those large operations will likely move in now as they can accept the margin compression due to scaling fees to eliminate the logistics.

If anything this results in a short term drop in subs but better long term viability for the game. I expect some % of people are going to rage about these patches.

I always wondered something about those who frame the argument as null vs highsec. Lets assume for the moment EVE was all highsec. Assuming we still played that sorta game do people not think we could do a complete takeover of say The Forge if we wanted? At some point you just have to realize you are an inferior player in a very deep game. There is nothing wrong with that. Enjoy what parts of the game you can manage to be good at.

The balance is that there is risk in null-sec while there is none in high-sec.

you do not understand balance

you asked "well effort is going down and reward is going up, isn't that a problem": it is obviously not, because before effort was way out of line with reward, and they needed to be adjusted. that's what balancing is. you said a dumb, you were wrong, and now you are trying to discuss something else to avoid admitting you were wrong

highsec has its place: the low-effort low-risk zone where you can earn the largest rewards for low-effort/low-risk activities. you don't want things balanced: you want highsec to have an absolute advantage in every respect (absolute profitability, effort, and risk), and currently highsec industry hits all three.

highsec has had an unjustifiable absolute advantage. it's important to remember that highsec is where the less adept, less adventurous players are and therefore should absolutely be the kiddy zone, but that's not relevant for this discussion: even were the highsec player even close to the equal of the nullsec player, there would be an absolute imbalance

that imbalance is being fixed. people who profited from that imbalance are whining up a storm, just like every single other balance fix ever. nano-nos-domi able to solo ten arbitrary ships? obviously imbalanced, but still got people whining up a storm. titans able to one-shot an entire grid of ships with absolutely no risk whatsoever? obviously unbalanced, but people still whined up a storm when fixed

highsec industry better in every way whatsoever than null? obviously unbalanced, but people are currently whining up a storm. water is wet, fire hot.


of course they're self-evidently correct, it is merely people with a vested interest in believing untruths that dispute them, or fools.

it's hard to make a man understand something when his livelihood depends on him not understanding it. it's also hard to make a man who doesn't understand math understand that 4^2=16, even though that is also self-evidently correct. that our arguments stand unrebutted except by this sort of nonsense despite so many people with a vested interest in trying to disprove them merely confirms our correctness



because the game is unbalanced. i see you're finally starting to get it: inferior players, taking less risk, and putting in less effort out-earning better players taking greater risks and putting in greater effort is an obvious problem. but again, we can even pretend that highseccers are equal to nullsecers and it's still a problem!