EVE General Discussion

You also suffer from the Lord Zym syndrome, where everything HAS to be focused and centered around you and your perfect alliance.

Nope, yours is *one* alliance in a sea of others. You might do your stuff the best possible (you do) but there's an ocean of others who don't.

Notice I said us AND any of our allies. You do know that between us and HBC we control half of null right. We also have intel on how several of the hostiles are ran.

It is almost like we keep watch on how other alliances are funded to know what we are up against when we fight. CRAZY huh. The model you speak of is a small minority of null.

Feel free to search me and all my alts for lost mining ships. I lost one years ago - in a stupid way I don't blame anyone for - I just could not bother flying the thing 40 jumps to where I had updated tank mods.

What you oddly forget to say is that since GS paid gankers for their job, subsidized ganking did not require your profit vs no profit considerations.

Also, I tried those fits - expecially from Ruby Porto and they were blasting FAILURES, because even with you guys around, they'd nerf the ISK income more than losing the ships and having to pay them back.




Considering I am losing 5-10 billions because of the low miners risk in these days, do you really believe I consider it a good thing?

I consider it *a thing*. A factor.

Shift happens. I deal with it, you could quit complaining and do the same.

Actually, if only I had more ISK I'd immediately sponsor a gank fest like you did and sadly stopped to do (despite people are still ganking even here so it *can* be done).




In case you missed the last year, CCP hired a guy probably not unkown to you or your alliance (your ex leader) and he put quite some hard and automated measures vs bots.
Are you saying you have no belief he can detect bots?

You should add another question: Or does this means they have information we don't?

My guess goes for phrasing and forum lobbing with arguments pulled out of an horse arse. Stating that firmly facts they have no proves of actually makes me think they do have information we don't, and then I become a sad panda.

It did. We had calculations showing we would profit overall using it as a manipulation technique. It was just indirect profit, but still profit.

You've got no concept of how the big alliances are funded, how they spend their money, how wars affect income and spending, you've no concept of what the state of null is today, and when called on it you respond with the following:

Sigh.

e: You probably should mark me down as a "highsec hater" too, since for things to be adjusted and compelling elsewhere, tweaks to highsec have to be made, eg production costs (actual fees paid to the station) are too low in highsec to make production competitive anywhere else, customs office taxes in highsec being what they are makes it difficult for low or nullsec POCOs to collect meaningful income through their taxes, station owners can't have the option to meaningfully control market taxes and broker fees in their stations unless broker fee/taxes eve-wide are higher (they should be along with stiffer penalties on 'high frequency' trading, eg .01ing) and so on. Y'know, rational fixes to allow them the flexibility to fix the rest of the game. But then again I think L4 income is fine, so maybe I'm not a hater?

So Natasha, if you agree that the difference between high and zero security space should be a scaling degree of rewards to go with the scaling degree of risks, incentives for players to take risks; how would you apply that to things like highsec NPC station refining, where the station costs nothing, the refine rate is 100%, manufacturing is effectively free, etc.? Will null manufacturing slots actually pay the manufacturer ISK to build things? Will refining ore in 0.0 give above 100% refine efficiency? 105%, perhaps?

*chuckle* I believe I already said: ask Null Sec folks. All of you would know better than I would what changes could or should be made. I have also already said: I do not live in Null Sec. I will not address problems that all of you would know better. As for refine percentages, etc. of HS vs Null and everyones much touted risk/reward comparisons: The game has graduated areas of security. Anyone who lives in Null knew going into it that it wasn't HS and players made the rules.

I'm probably one of the rare HS people who will stand up and say your area of the game should be looked at, fixed up and made somewhat fun and enjoyable: But my sticking up for all of you does have it's limits. Pick words out and try to make your side of the discussion all you want. I'm actually just as heartless and uncaring about Null as you Null Sec'er are about HS ( and any HS'er/carebear is more than welcome to copy this ):

The HS player base is not responsible for any problems in Null. Outside of any game mechanics, CCP is not responsible for your problems. You willingly chose to live and play in the area of the game with no rules and the players drive the content. Nobody forced you to make your in game home there. If there's a problem, Null Sec people need to collectively look in the mirror and see where the problem lies. Point your finger all you want at HS and carebears trying to assign blame. Now look where the rest of your fingers are pointing. Any nerfing of HS right on up to removing it will not fix your problem with your player created content and game play. For every one of your "Boo hoo, Woe is me" posts, my response is the same you've given us: "STFU, HTFU and adapt. Or GTFO." All of you collectively made your bed, now lay in it.

So NO(!) I don't really give a rats' ass about Null. You folks make it more work and effort than it's really worth.

That sure was some fine question-evading rhetoric.