These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 is the real problem people have with High Sec?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Davis TetrisKing
The Vendunari
End of Life
#21 - 2012-10-18 05:47:51 UTC
No More Heroes wrote:
If you read this article here http://themittani.com/features/vision-thing

It gives a really good idea of the problems with 0.0 ~Then, we see the recent changes over the last year to high sec (alchemy, mining barges, the upcoming criminal thing, hell even FW since most everyone made an alt to get in on that too.)

It's like every other area of the game gets sheltered, and coddled and buffed and polished whereas 0.0 gets kicked in the balls. The hardest place to live gets harder. That's my problem with high sec.


Good read. I really really liked the analogy at the end about how the smaller battles over infrastructure was the lifeblood of 0.0.

To me it brings up some interesting thoughts about ganking ('putting peasants to the sword') vs fighting over a resource. I would say overall ganking isn't my favorite game mechanic. Bit of fun for the ganker but seems like more of a 'lol, got you noob' victory, and really not a whole lot of fun for the gankee.

Fighting for a resource sounds a bit more fun to me (could just be personal preference).

Imagine if while mining I was able to set up some form of non-permanent personal defence. Only hangs around while I'm on grid, protects me from getting ista-gibbed so I have a chance to get away, but if I don't get away I'm going to die. If I run the aggressor gets a small win from driving me from my resource (plus loot or whatever from my defence that was left behind), if I dont run I die, or the third option where it would buy enough time for friendlies to actually come to my defence.

Again this is all just off the top of my head thoughts (probably been covered elsewhere) and I havn't considered the full implications of systems like this.

Maybe I just sound like a carebear, but I do like the idea of promoting engagements that arn't so one sided as ganks and giving ratters/miners/explorers tools to do their job in riskier environments without having to run at the first sign of a slightly bigger fish. Might just attract a few more people out of high-sec.
Omega Sunset
Black.Omega
#22 - 2012-10-18 05:51:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Omega Sunset
Well not speaking as a lowsec based player, but as a cov-ops pilot based in hisec (+trader) with little to no problem getting around 90% of the galaxy, I see #1 agitation for lowsec players being the lack of targets, especially 1v1 fights. It's nothing new, saw the long fight over it when they split tram/fel in UO. Even with 2x the reward to go to fel, it was still a ghost town (I know, my guild did most of our stuff in fel on the most populated server). Same situation here. It's pretty much a pvp argument just like "balancing" is about pvp for the most part, which was the same for UO as well regarding all the calls for nerfing.

CCP isn't deaf to the cries, which is a big reason they have been using FW as a carrot(LP/ISK faucet) to bring more targets into losec. FW PvP ships as traditional, but now mission runners, and soon industrials. No protest from me if FW was being crafted to be fun like the SWG GCW was (was awesome pre-CU, TEF and all), but it's just an ISK faucet here :(

But yeah, it's mostly about pvp in lowsec. No new revelations there.


edit: oh and to analyses nul, I'm not even going to touch on that. My days of extreme political struggles in such guilds (or such corps for that matter) is left in the past for me. Small corps and/or fw alliances is end-game for me.

—Ω—
Bane Necran
Appono Astos
#23 - 2012-10-18 05:52:52 UTC
They hate our freedoms.

"In the void is virtue, and no evil. Wisdom has existence, principle has existence, the Way has existence, spirit is nothingness." ~Miyamoto Musashi
Davis TetrisKing
The Vendunari
End of Life
#24 - 2012-10-18 06:03:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Davis TetrisKing
Omega Sunset wrote:
Well not speaking as a lowsec based player, but as a cov-ops pilot based in hisec (+trader) with little to no problem getting around 90% of the galaxy, I see #1 agitation for lowsec players being the lack of targets, especially 1v1 fights. It's nothing new, saw the long fight over it when they split tram/fel in UO. Even with 2x the reward to go to fel, it was still a ghost town (I know, my guild did most of our stuff in fel on the most populated server). Same situation here. It's pretty much a pvp argument just like "balancing" is about pvp for the most part, which was the same for UO as well regarding all the calls for nerfing.

CCP isn't deaf to the cries, which is a big reason they have been using FW as a carrot(LP/ISK faucet) to bring more targets into losec. FW PvP ships as traditional, but now mission runners, and soon industrials. No protest from me if FW was being crafted to be fun like the SWG GCW was (was awesome pre-CU, TEF and all), but it's just an ISK faucet here :(

But yeah, it's mostly about pvp in lowsec. No new revelations there.


More targets in low does seem (in my opinion) to be one of the major drivers for trying to get people out of high. I'm wondering if the answers lie in low sec as well. By making certain tasks safer (read: still not 100% safe like high-sec) for the PvEer in lowsec it is likely to increase the number of targets. Hopefully this sounds like a good think for those currently in low sec.

One example of this is the concerns some gankers raised about AI targeting, specifically they were worried that if the rats target them instead of the ratter it will make ganking harder. Making ganking harder will be a positive force for getting more people into low sec, increasing the number of targets. Sure the targets might be harder to kill, but would people agree it may be more fun having more targets to choose from, getting to decide if attacking is worth the risk every now and then?

EDIT: also please excuse my ignorance but I am unfamiliar with most of the acronyms in the second paragraph (SWG GCW? CU? TEF?).
Davis TetrisKing
The Vendunari
End of Life
#25 - 2012-10-18 06:06:11 UTC
Bane Necran wrote:
They hate our freedoms.


One man's freedom not to be shot removes another man's freedom to shoot whoever they want Big smile
Omega Sunset
Black.Omega
#26 - 2012-10-18 06:19:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Omega Sunset
Davis TetrisKing wrote:
Omega Sunset wrote:
Well not speaking as a lowsec based player, but as a cov-ops pilot based in hisec (+trader) with little to no problem getting around 90% of the galaxy, I see #1 agitation for lowsec players being the lack of targets, especially 1v1 fights. It's nothing new, saw the long fight over it when they split tram/fel in UO. Even with 2x the reward to go to fel, it was still a ghost town (I know, my guild did most of our stuff in fel on the most populated server). Same situation here. It's pretty much a pvp argument just like "balancing" is about pvp for the most part, which was the same for UO as well regarding all the calls for nerfing.

CCP isn't deaf to the cries, which is a big reason they have been using FW as a carrot(LP/ISK faucet) to bring more targets into losec. FW PvP ships as traditional, but now mission runners, and soon industrials. No protest from me if FW was being crafted to be fun like the SWG GCW was (was awesome pre-CU, TEF and all), but it's just an ISK faucet here :(

But yeah, it's mostly about pvp in lowsec. No new revelations there.


More targets in low does seem (in my opinion) to be one of the major drivers for trying to get people out of high. I'm wondering if the answers lie in low sec as well. By making certain tasks safer (read: still not 100% safe like high-sec) for the PvEer in lowsec it is likely to increase the number of targets. Hopefully this sounds like a good think for those currently in low sec.

One example of this is the concerns some gankers raised about AI targeting, specifically they were worried that if the rats target them instead of the ratter it will make ganking harder. Making ganking harder will be a positive force for getting more people into low sec, increasing the number of targets. Sure the targets might be harder to kill, but would people agree it may be more fun having more targets to choose from, getting to decide if attacking is worth the risk every now and then?

EDIT: also please excuse my ignorance but I am unfamiliar with most of the acronyms in the second paragraph (SWG GCW? CU? TEF?).

Oh yeah, I edited that in about nulsec before catching your reply. I mean I just don;t have it in me any longer for the politics, long before coming to EVE.

GCW is Galactic Civil War. It was the FW system of SWG. Including FW player cities and FW bases at their heart. TEF is temporary enemy faction. So if a non-faction/covert player attacked a faction mob, such as a stormtrooper, they would be flagged as an overt faction player for an amount of time allowing enemy faction players to attack them at will. Also being covert in a faction, and a faction npc/mob searched you, you would be flagged as TEF and attackable. It made everyplace safe, yet at the same time everyplace dangerous. TEF's were common, had to been trying really hard not to TEF. Carebears destroyed the TEF system though, (CU, combat upgrade). Then NGE (new game experience) destroyed the GCW and turned it into WoW battlegrounds. SWG died. My profession was a master bounty hunter, in the GCW with rank of General. I've never forgiven what Sony did to the game, never will.

—Ω—
pussnheels
Viziam
#27 - 2012-10-18 06:24:44 UTC
Davis TetrisKing wrote:
A lot of GD at the moment seems to be unhappy about people living in High Sec almost primarily, so I want to legitimately ask what the biggest issues those players have with allowing other players to live in a mostly risk-free environment.

Can people make more ISK/hour than you think they should (L4s etc)?

Do people think that semi-afk mining is an issue as it potentially drives mineral prices down?

Do people want more targets to shoot in low/null/WH?

Should no-one in eve be allowed to play in a relatively risk free (from a ship getting blown up standpoint) environment?

Do people feel that if something can be done in High-Sec there is no point even bothering to do that activity in Low/Null/WH? (and also is this inherently a bad thing?)


I am legitimately interested in both what the perceived problems are with High-Sec and further what changes such a discussion could lead to in the future.

It has nothing to do with money making , it is a fact that ratting , anomolies etc in nulsec can earn you more in a day than what a high sec missionrunner makes in a week aslong you put effort into it

Most people who moan about high sec are these socalled ' elite 'PVPers and zealots who keep demanding that they should have the absolute right to shoot anybody in high sec without any penalty,, they the ones you hear whinning about highsec the most on here

they are a minority but a loud one
key word is effort , if people can't be bothered working for the goals they set themselves , doesn't matter if it is industry, pve, pvp , you will not go far int this game

I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire
Imports Plus
Doomheim
#28 - 2012-10-18 06:32:47 UTC
This is the problem with high sec http://i.imgur.com/Zz9Eh.jpg

THIS RIGHT HERE- BEHOLD WHAT YOU HAVE DONE CCP
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#29 - 2012-10-18 06:34:47 UTC
No More Heroes wrote:
If you read this article here http://themittani.com/features/vision-thing

It gives a really good idea of the problems with 0.0 ~Then, we see the recent changes over the last year to high sec (alchemy, mining barges, the upcoming criminal thing, hell even FW since most everyone made an alt to get in on that too.)

It's like every other area of the game gets sheltered, and coddled and buffed and polished whereas 0.0 gets kicked in the balls. The hardest place to live gets harder. That's my problem with high sec.

what? 0.0 is trash, broken, boring, too hard, too whatever bla bla.

And that's your problem with highsec?

Well I'll be......

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Imports Plus
Doomheim
#30 - 2012-10-18 06:37:32 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
No More Heroes wrote:
If you read this article here http://themittani.com/features/vision-thing

It gives a really good idea of the problems with 0.0 ~Then, we see the recent changes over the last year to high sec (alchemy, mining barges, the upcoming criminal thing, hell even FW since most everyone made an alt to get in on that too.)

It's like every other area of the game gets sheltered, and coddled and buffed and polished whereas 0.0 gets kicked in the balls. The hardest place to live gets harder. That's my problem with high sec.

what? 0.0 is trash, broken, boring, too hard, too whatever bla bla.

And that's your problem with highsec?

Well I'll be......


The risk vs. rewards are clearly skewed, but thats ok- defend your afk botting empire to the death!
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#31 - 2012-10-18 06:37:55 UTC
Imports Plus wrote:
This is the problem with high sec http://i.imgur.com/Zz9Eh.jpg

THIS RIGHT HERE- BEHOLD WHAT YOU HAVE DONE CCP

No. The problem is the people carrying the bloody camera SHOULD have been carrying smartbombs.

Besides, how can CCP fix "dedicated" multiboxers? Limit account numbers?

It's a sandbox ffs.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#32 - 2012-10-18 06:41:57 UTC
Imports Plus wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
No More Heroes wrote:
If you read this article here http://themittani.com/features/vision-thing

It gives a really good idea of the problems with 0.0 ~Then, we see the recent changes over the last year to high sec (alchemy, mining barges, the upcoming criminal thing, hell even FW since most everyone made an alt to get in on that too.)

It's like every other area of the game gets sheltered, and coddled and buffed and polished whereas 0.0 gets kicked in the balls. The hardest place to live gets harder. That's my problem with high sec.

what? 0.0 is trash, broken, boring, too hard, too whatever bla bla.

And that's your problem with highsec?

Well I'll be......


The risk vs. rewards are clearly skewed, but thats ok- defend your afk botting empire to the death!

1) Botting is against the EULA. Report them.
2) Being AFK is not - unless you're botting - see #1.

Starting to see a pattern in the "AFK" terminology here - wonder where the source is.

Whose your main? Which shitpoasting teary eyed ganker are you?

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#33 - 2012-10-18 06:47:49 UTC
Davis TetrisKing wrote:
A lot of GD at the moment seems to be unhappy about people living in High Sec almost primarily, so I want to legitimately ask what the biggest issues those players have with allowing other players to live in a mostly risk-free environment.

Can people make more ISK/hour than you think they should (L4s etc)?

Do people think that semi-afk mining is an issue as it potentially drives mineral prices down?

Do people want more targets to shoot in low/null/WH?

Should no-one in eve be allowed to play in a relatively risk free (from a ship getting blown up standpoint) environment?

Do people feel that if something can be done in High-Sec there is no point even bothering to do that activity in Low/Null/WH? (and also is this inherently a bad thing?)


I am legitimately interested in both what the perceived problems are with High-Sec and further what changes such a discussion could lead to in the future.


To begin, you need to understand that most low/ null people play the forums and not the game. That should tell you plenty right there about life outside of high sec. So the opinions posted here in GD are in no way representative of the player base as a whole.

That said. I think the main problem is that CCP encouraged alliances. Thus stagnating null to the point where nothing ever happens. And they kept that festering sore known as low sec that should have long ago been excised from the game.

The tldr is remove low sec and alliances and people will have something to do besides whining on the forums all day long.

Mr Epeen Cool
Davis TetrisKing
The Vendunari
End of Life
#34 - 2012-10-18 06:49:10 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
No More Heroes wrote:
If you read this article here http://themittani.com/features/vision-thing

It gives a really good idea of the problems with 0.0 ~Then, we see the recent changes over the last year to high sec (alchemy, mining barges, the upcoming criminal thing, hell even FW since most everyone made an alt to get in on that too.)

It's like every other area of the game gets sheltered, and coddled and buffed and polished whereas 0.0 gets kicked in the balls. The hardest place to live gets harder. That's my problem with high sec.

what? 0.0 is trash, broken, boring, too hard, too whatever bla bla.

And that's your problem with highsec?

Well I'll be......


While I understand where you're coming from Touval I actually think his point leads to a good discussion. I definitely don't agree with a lot of the blatant 'null sucks so nerf hi' attitudes, but if low/null players are coming back to high to make their isk this may help to answer why they are unsatisfied and possibly look into options to solve it instead of nerfing High-Sec.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#35 - 2012-10-18 06:52:26 UTC
Davis TetrisKing wrote:
A lot of GD at the moment seems to be unhappy about people living in High Sec almost primarily, so I want to legitimately ask what the biggest issues those players have with allowing other players to live in a mostly risk-free environment.

Can people make more ISK/hour than you think they should (L4s etc)?

Do people think that semi-afk mining is an issue as it potentially drives mineral prices down?

Do people want more targets to shoot in low/null/WH?

Should no-one in eve be allowed to play in a relatively risk free (from a ship getting blown up standpoint) environment?

Do people feel that if something can be done in High-Sec there is no point even bothering to do that activity in Low/Null/WH? (and also is this inherently a bad thing?)


I am legitimately interested in both what the perceived problems are with High-Sec and further what changes such a discussion could lead to in the future.



The tl;dr issue is that everything that happens in EVE affects everything else. If you have a competitive game based on economic limitations, then there will be zero sum effects coming into play.

Probably the biggest imbalance in EVE today is that facing industrialists in 0.0 compared to industrialists in hi-sec. The hisec guys have almost every advantage you could think of:

-More stations,
-much better stations,
-many systems with multiple stations,
-the stations are free, the stations are invulnerable,
-they have far more office slots,
-better refining
-they can't be locked out of the stations,
-they get free protection from CONCORD...
-a wider set of customers and suppliers

it was famously said that there is more production capacity in the single system of Nonni than there is in the whole of the Deklein region (which is quite well developed for a nullsec sov area). In theory, the nullsec industrialists have immediate access to the hi-send minerals, but those are so easy to transport compared to the low-end ones that this just becomes another advantage that hi-sec gets.

Small wonder that nullsec industry is essentaially limited to supercap production (only because there is an artificial limitation on producing supers anywhere else), cap boosters and ratting ammo.

This massive imbalance has far reaching effects. For one thing, no serious alliance will bother encouraging local production. Why should they? It's inefficient, expensive to protect, and the goods can be obtained more cheaply at a single market node in hi-sec and easily transported there. The most efficient thing an alliance can do is to outsource its industrial requirements and only recruit PvPers. A few jump-freighters can supply them with no great difficulty and at less total cost than it would take to produce goods for themselves.

Do you think this state of affairs might possibly have affected the development and culture of 0.0 and attitudes towards hi-sec? In a positive way or a negative way? Do you think the situation could be changed to make EVE better?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#36 - 2012-10-18 06:54:13 UTC
The way I see the problem is that it's like a seesaw where you cannot stand in the middle. You have to be on either end. You are either a casual player who does not have time to be in a 0.0 corp or alliance and deal with the politics and ops, or you can be dedicated to 0.0 life and what it requires.

Between 0.0 and high sec there is a great wall of carebear consisting mainly of gank pipelines and bubble camps. Nobody is going to casually go into 0.0 except maybe for a roam or small fleet engagement. Problem is, it's die in a fire time or the way it ends up, and therefore grinding ensues in order to do it again.


I believe that if the gate mechanics were to change, and put an end to gate camping, more casual players would venture out. If you are in a shootout inside of a structure and every doorway is a fatal funnel, you are not going to want to go through any doorways, but the gate mechanics as they stand create this problem, where every system is a room with doors, and all of them are potential fatal funnels. I know all the "tricks" of avoiding camps and even a few hardly mentioned, but who, not being stationed out there, can stay for the long term? Even the die hards go back to high sec eventually.

Eliminate the reliance on gates, and this wall comes down. The gate camp and blob gets replaced by the combat patrol. The bubble is replaced by the combat probe. Only killmail addicts and people who can camp a gate like a miner can mine roids all day (like a zombie) would complain but those players who want and are up to the challenge of earning their kill will benefit and those who want to take risks and trespass can have a better chance. A good time will be had by all.


Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Davis TetrisKing
The Vendunari
End of Life
#37 - 2012-10-18 06:55:24 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Davis TetrisKing wrote:
A lot of GD at the moment seems to be unhappy about people living in High Sec almost primarily, so I want to legitimately ask what the biggest issues those players have with allowing other players to live in a mostly risk-free environment.

Can people make more ISK/hour than you think they should (L4s etc)?

Do people think that semi-afk mining is an issue as it potentially drives mineral prices down?

Do people want more targets to shoot in low/null/WH?

Should no-one in eve be allowed to play in a relatively risk free (from a ship getting blown up standpoint) environment?

Do people feel that if something can be done in High-Sec there is no point even bothering to do that activity in Low/Null/WH? (and also is this inherently a bad thing?)


I am legitimately interested in both what the perceived problems are with High-Sec and further what changes such a discussion could lead to in the future.


To begin, you need to understand that most low/ null people play the forums and not the game. That should tell you plenty right there about life outside of high sec. So the opinions posted here in GD are in no way representative of the player base as a whole.

That said. I think the main problem is that CCP encouraged alliances. Thus stagnating null to the point where nothing ever happens. And they kept that festering sore known as low sec that should have long ago been excised from the game.

The tldr is remove low sec and alliances and people will have something to do besides whining on the forums all day long.

Mr Epeen Cool


Yeah I think there are a lot of issues with low-sec. I feel like 0.7-0.5 needs to be an intermediary step (not as big risks as low but somehow different from high) so that there is some kind of entry level for new/inexperienced players without getting massively outgunned.

As far as low-sec goes I feel that the whole area doesn't have a strong enough incentive to live there unless you want to blow other people up... which makes other people not want to live there. This makes high-sec so much more inviting by comparison.
S'Way
State War Academy
Caldari State
#38 - 2012-10-18 07:01:45 UTC
Imports Plus wrote:


The risk vs. rewards are clearly skewed, but thats ok- defend your afk botting empire to the death!

Bots are just as common in 0.0 as empire. A lot of 0.0 is now safer than empire (intel channels spotting non-blues 2 regions off heading your way isn't uncommon in some areas).

High-sec is just getting more attention now that 0.0 nap trains stagnated it to the point of death.
I left 0.0 after another year out there purely because having half of EvE blue is boring. I would move to low-sec, but the security status grind is just too obnoxious if you need to go to empire to follow targets.
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#39 - 2012-10-18 07:09:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Touval Lysander
Davis TetrisKing wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
No More Heroes wrote:
If you read this article here http://themittani.com/features/vision-thing

It gives a really good idea of the problems with 0.0 ~Then, we see the recent changes over the last year to high sec (alchemy, mining barges, the upcoming criminal thing, hell even FW since most everyone made an alt to get in on that too.)

It's like every other area of the game gets sheltered, and coddled and buffed and polished whereas 0.0 gets kicked in the balls. The hardest place to live gets harder. That's my problem with high sec.

what? 0.0 is trash, broken, boring, too hard, too whatever bla bla.

And that's your problem with highsec?

Well I'll be......


While I understand where you're coming from Touval I actually think his point leads to a good discussion. I definitely don't agree with a lot of the blatant 'null sucks so nerf hi' attitudes, but if low/null players are coming back to high to make their isk this may help to answer why they are unsatisfied and possibly look into options to solve it instead of nerfing High-Sec.

Only when they make up their mind whether there's better money to be had in highsec while they enjoy wearing a Concord comforter or whether it's because OTHER people are making too much money in highsec wearing the Concord comforter.

They're saying we SHOULDN'T at the same time they're saying they MUST. Read between the lines mate.

There's tonnes of money in 0.0 but you can get shot. No argument.
You can make money in highsec and not get shot. No argument.

But if it's about making money - why does it matter WHERE you are? However, when it comes to PLAYSTYLE - THEN it matters.

What they want is 0.0 "I can kill anybody" PLAYSTYLE ability while they gather highsec cash without highsec repercussions.


PS: I'm the chef tonight so I'll pick this up tomorrow. Hooroo Cool

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Davis TetrisKing
The Vendunari
End of Life
#40 - 2012-10-18 07:09:08 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


Small wonder that nullsec industry is essentaially limited to supercap production (only because there is an artificial limitation on producing supers anywhere else), cap boosters and ratting ammo.

This massive imbalance has far reaching effects. For one thing, no serious alliance will bother encouraging local production. Why should they? It's inefficient, expensive to protect, and the goods can be obtained more cheaply at a single market node in hi-sec and easily transported there. The most efficient thing an alliance can do is to outsource its industrial requirements and only recruit PvPers. A few jump-freighters can supply them with no great difficulty and at less total cost than it would take to produce goods for themselves.

Do you think this state of affairs might possibly have affected the development and culture of 0.0 and attitudes towards hi-sec? In a positive way or a negative way? Do you think the situation could be changed to make EVE better?



Yeah I actually agree with the issues around it being so much easier to manufacture in high-sec. This would be an interesting one to balance as making one significantly better than the other tends to kill one off. In the current state high-sec wins. Improving null sec productions may potentially drop prices below high-sec production costs and kill high sec production.

I've only really dabbled in industry so I don't have much insight, definitely a good point though.