EVE General Discussion

In an effort to fix the risk reward balance in EVE it is possible CCP may need to apply a nerf to high sec, here are the most common arguments people use to say that idea is “impossible”, I don’t think any of them are reasonable and I think a Highsec Nerf needs to be on the table.

1) If you nerf high sec I won’t be able to play anymore!

- A nerf doesn’t mean taking away any activities, it simply means making them less profitable. If missions paid 1% less they would still be worth it, what if it was 10% or 15%? You can still mine if the roids yield 8% less ore per cycle. You can do everything you can do now, just for less profit.

2) "Null players" just want to kill us all, that’s the only reason they bring up a nerf.

- Many players who live in null are involved in trade and industry, many of them have allies and friends, they don’t just shoot everyone they see for no reason. A High Sec nerf is about the risk reward balance of the game and it’s long term health, not PVP.

- There's no such thing as a "Null Player", they're just players, they go where they want.


3) Null is too dangerous, anyone who goes there get’s shot immediately.

- Maybe if you wander in unannounced. Many players live in null quite happily, it’s a case of knowing how to survive there and making some friends and it’s really not too hard.

4) Null is too safe, it’s just a sea of blues and I can’t get access to it.

- The safety of some regions of null is the result of the great efforts of many well organised, dedicated players. The fact their space is safe is a result of their hard work. Many alliances now recruit new players, this would be more common if industry were more viable in null.

5) Nobody could ever mine/mission in low, they would be instantly killed by pirates.

- Again a solo retriever is a tempting target but a combined fleet of PVPers and miners/PVEers with warp core stabilisers and scouts would be much harder to take down. Again it’s feasible; it just requires some skill and some friends.


6) I pay my subscription so I should be able to play however I want, it’s a SANDBOX.

- This is not the meaning of a sandbox, I pay my sub too, can I have a ship that respawns? No, because it would be too damaging to industry. In the same way a super safe High Sec with massive rewards is too damaging to the rest of the game and overall balance.

7) If High Sec were nerfed ship costs would increase massively and that is bad.

- The absolute price of ships doesn’t really matter, what matters is how much effort it takes to get set up with a ship that can compete, whether a battleship or a mining barge. With a more dynamic eco-system outside High Sec the barriers to entry for all professions would be lower and so the fact that an individual ship costs more would not matter.

8) High Sec is the empire and null is the wildlands, so the industry should be in High.

- Actually there are very stable empires in null built by the hard work of many people and yet they cannot sustain a fraction of the industry that is handed, for free, to High Sec. This is a great detriment to the game and a bad message to future players, “don’t work hard, you can’t do better than staying in the system you started in”.

- For Risk and Reward to balance an area that is safe should be low value, and a dangerous area should be high value, having a high value safe area distorts everything and spoils a fundamental mechanic of the game, no wonder 71% of people live in High Sec.

9) I enjoy the game the way it is, why change it?

- The fact that 71% of toons live in High Sec is a clear indication that it is too good and may be in need of a Nerf. High Sec is the perfect storm, it has great mining, all the trade hubs, the vast majority of the manufacturing slots and really great high level missions, all while being protected and safe. The rewards easily outbalance the risks and so it needs rebalancing. It’s not really a personality clash between players, it’s a case of keeping the game true to it’s guiding principles.

10) Leave the industrialists alone, they don’t want anything to do with anyone else.

- Industrialists don’t want big piles of ore and ships, they want to sell them for ISK, the people who buy them are the ones who had ships destroyed because they took a risk and were unlucky. So the whole industrial market is the players, PVPers and PVEers everywhere. Asking to be left alone makes no sense, we’re all in this together.

11) Everyone who wants a High Sec nerf is an alt of James 315, who himself is an alt of the mittani.

- You got me! Everyone in low and null is the mittani, he’s the only one there.

12) I don’t want to join a corp, I just want to play solo and that sounds hard in low and null.

- If you’re dead set on it it’s not impossible to play solo in low and null, moreover if you really want to play alone what is the attraction of an MMO?

13) This is just about some players trying to force everyone to play like them.

- It really isn’t, diversity in the game is obviously really important, the vast majority of players specialise and that is a good thing. This is about balancing the regions of the game.

14) You broke null and now you want to break highsec too, go away!

- No player caused the problems null is now facing. HighSec produces goods so cheap and in such great supply it’s not worth doing industry in null. If you do it’s an unnecessary hassle and you open yourself to attack by your enemies. This causes the majority of moneymaking to be done in highsec, making things worse.

15) You just hate high sec players, you hate freedom!

- This isn’t an emotional argument it’s about balancing game dynamics. There are trolls and griefers in EVE, that’s part of it, this isn’t by or about them.

didnt read the huge wall of text you posted because if someone needs so many words to explain his opinion, then he is wrong anyways. now to your TL;DR. if you give stats, at least post from where you made them up. because 71% of players in highsec can just as well mean that most people just have their alts stationed in highsec.

and just because many ppl live in highsec it doesnt mean that something is wrong with highsec. you maybe should think the other way around. if there are so few ppl in nullsec although there are a ton of systems, then maybe something is wrong with nullsec. like being able to control huge a amount of systems just with supers while noone has to even live there. power projection in 0.0 is the problem.

Rather than a nerf to high-sec I would rather see a black market in lowsec and a buff in null.

Most of null space is borderline useless and should really be no less profitable than the best system in highsec.

Lowsec could use more signatures and anomalies even if they are mid-range at best.

Nerfing HighSec more will only cause an exodus from the game. Might be good for some, but not so much for CCPs accountants. The ideology that nerfing one area to promote another hasn't worked, doing so even more still won't work.

The call isn't to nerf Highsec, the call is to make most of Nullsec actually worth a damn.

This is a 16, I've already responded to it.


Define 'too'? From google, "To a higher degree than is desirable, permissible, or possible; excessively: "he was driving too fast".".


As an example take mining, it pays about the same in High and Low and Null but in High it's much easier and less risky, this makes it "too rewarding" for the amount of risk you are taking. If you double the risk you should double the reward, if you want a risk reward balance.


Yes I agree Null industry needs fixing, this post is about the possibility that High Sec will need nerfing aswell.

Exactly.

Revert the anomaly nerf
Add 0.0 only Ice Grav sites.
Expand 0.0 station production lines massively
Allow the markets to be controlled by the station owner
Improve corporation/alliance controls to allow more flexibility w/o all the risk.
Make POSs not ****
-Remove the drawbacks of adv.production arrays while anchored in null.
etc.

In relation to what it's already been through. Continue to hack off pieces and there will be nothing left.



Same idea different wording. Neither has really worked.

You mean all the buffs it has continued to see? It doesn't really make sense to use the word ”more” for nerfs in that case.

No. It's quite a different idea since it's not just carrot or stick.

Sure. And I wonder how long it would take you to lock a thread detailing the little CCP-goon coalition you've got going on with Soundwave. Or maybe a thread that is ANTI-nerf-highsec.

Probably about 2 minutes, give or take the few seconds you waste knocking over your drink while you frantically scramble for the "lock" button.