EVE General Discussion

You've certainly done your best to make it that way.

Well played, I suppose.

You should try to get into the next CMS instead of Issler or something. You'd be just as useless as her but at least you would shut up.

I dunno, Issler's nowhere near as shrill or ridiculous.

By your own account, you've deliberately loaded this thread with divisive, partisan point-scoring because of things that other people said a while ago in other threads that hurt your precious feelings. You've done your absolute best to make this thread into another "hi-sec vs 0.0" mudslinging event in order to justify your premise that all threads about 0.0 rebalancing are like this and, I rather suspect, in order to divert or sabotage any productive discussion of the issue. I know you've done it deliberately, because I'm perfectly well aware that you're far too intelligent to have done it accidentally.

I'm giving you all the respect you're due here. I respect your intelligence. I respect your ability to make a lot of ISK within the EVE economy. I respect your success in truncating any attempt to discuss the imbalances which you so successfully leverage for your own gain.


As I said: well played.

You didn't do anything wrong. you chose to play a game with other people, which implies consent to be interacted with. Choices have consequences.

If you had chosen to play a single player game and i jumped through your window so I could play with you, that would be wrong, you didn't choose to play with me. But logging on to eve is choosing to play with me. So play we shall.




Then your choice to play an mmo that features non-consensual pvp is a bad choice.


Nothing wrong with those activities. I am an Explorer and I also fight for the Freedom of New Eden agains the raving Sansha Hordes (ie I shoot npcs and null sec and high sec lol)



Every isk you gain in bounty, every ship you build, every Loyalty point you gain, every piece ore you mine lessens the value of tings possessed by other players. By adding things to a game with other people in it, you CONSENT to be interacted with.

If you don't want to be interacted with, do nothing but fly around and look at stars.


Evil? No (only Mittani is evil, and you sir are no Jack Kenned...I mean Mittani), you are greedy, selfish, ignorant and unwilling to accept responsibility for your actions if (and ONLY IF) you believe you should be able to come into MY game and do things to me (like make my isk worth less by making your own isk) without me having any way to retaliate.

Shennanigans. No one who is as economically literate as I know for a fact you to be can possibly be puzzled by such a simplistic, almost trivial dilemma. You might equally well ask what's the point of working if you live in a country with social security where you run no risk of starving.

The answer is equally obvious. You're implicitly employing the fallacy of the excluded middle, and you're also explicitly counter-factually asserting that hi-sec is a zero risk environment, when it clearly and measurably isn't. When you use a false axiom to power a fallacy then is it any wonder that you derive a trivially wrong result?

I'd certainly agree that hi-sec is a lower risk environment than the other areas, but for someone who uses "all those posts in General Discussion" as a justification, you seem to be blind to the very many posts in GD complaining about the presence of any risk at all in hi-sec.

But risk there is and if I can possibly help it, risk there will always be.

A little on track here:
This is the only part of the OP that really worth discussing:


This is incorrect.

You and I both have a factory.

On your side of the street it's legal to hire illegal immegrants and pay them $1.50 an hour.

On my side of the street I am required by a law, that is impossible to circumvent, to pay my employees $7.50 an hour.

We both build using the exact same materials.
On my side of the street I have access to materials that are used very little in the thing we build, and I have little access to materials that are used abundantly in the thing we build.

You have very little access to the least used material, but the most used is also the most abundant on your side of the street.
You're also provided with an automated work force to go out and aquire, with greater efficiency, the materials we both need. Whereas on my side of the street I am required to you subpar equipment to aquire materials.

To top it off, your side of the street has many more factories at your disposal and God himself policing your streets.


We both build the exact same thing.
However, on your side of the street it's cheaper, faster, and easier to move than it is on my.

Also,
I effectively work for the corporation that owns the factory where I work.
You do not; yet you can get better prices than my employer is allowed to offer me.

If I'm buying minerals in an entire region of null sec, other people are not. The exact same thing is obviously true about high sec, except that it's possible for you to move to the region next door. Even then, the abundance of materials is so great that a single region can support multiple buyers in high sec; that isn't the case in null.

High sec demand is exceeded. Null sec isn't capable of meeting the demand for the most abundantly used materials in it's own space, and it's not as simple as "no one's doing it in null."

As long as it is more lucrative to mine and build in high sec few people will be willing to live in null and do those things. If your goal is to make the most amount of isk you can in the time you have then high sec will always be the most appealing place to play.

It is not propaganda when people say that you can make far, far more isk as a high sec industrialist than you can as a null one. The things that generate lots and lots of isk in null sec are not things that the majority of people can take advantage of. Things like moon mining and capital ship production are not things that individuals in null sec do to make themselves isk. They're intended to benefit the corporation directly.

We should not be penalized for doing something in null sec that you can also do in high sec, and we effectively are.
The mechanics that allow you to do things cheaper and more efficiently in high sec have a negative impact on null sec.

Not all of us that play EVE are "pvpers", but we enjoy the risk of flying around in null sec.
Some of us would appreciate our participating in the wider game to be rewarded instead of penalized. Some of us actually consider it an impalance when people who put forth very little effort, and assume very little risk, to be reward more than those of us who do put in effort and assume greater risk.

In otherwords, if you play the game set on easy you should get a smaller reward than those of us who play with the game set to hard.

(i don't think it would be possible to balance out null sec industry without some kind of nerf to high sec industry, and high sec isk generation through mission running wouldn't be such a big deal if we actually had missions we could run in the space we lived in. The things responcible for filling a high sec system are not present in the very vast majority of the systems in null sec.)

It looks like you are replying to me, if so You have a problem with reading compression problem.

Did you not see the part of the post I was replying to with the BOLD/UNDERLINE/HIGHLIGHT thing going on. I was aksing why you high sec people keep coming back to the utterly ridicules idea that someone who does something to them "must have something against their play style".

I did not ask why people keep coming back to this thread.

You're incredibly dense.

There's a difference between someone that doesn't want to get shot by other players but doesn't mind, and someone who thinks that they shouldn't have to worry about getting shot by other players.

I think Jen is saying that they take issue with the later; not the former.


And she's right. If you're playing EVE you shouldn't have a problem with getting shot at. It's a part of EVE and you chose to play the game; therefore you should be willing to accept that someone can and may shoot you.

A player who does their best not to get shot at is a good player.

A player who does their best to get the game changed so they can't be shot at is a bad player.