EVE General Discussion

Buffing / revamping POSes is not a point to your "side", it's an ancient, "dead horse" (including AGES old threads titled with "flogging the dead horse" and similar) from the whole community since well before you ever emerged as prominent alliance.

Non responsive as usual. You would be a far more effective communicator if you actually read what you were attempting to respond to instead of just hammering through spam responses to everything in a thread.

Excellent. In that case there's no issue with a rebalancing of risk vs isk in the various levels of security space, since it's just a stupid fake currency a slight decrease in the reward that nobody really cares about in the first place.

Glad we could wrap up this thread in agreement.

From a forum perspective, this makes sense. As solutions and seeing ideas ferment, it isn't. The fact is, it's broke and has been for 10 years. I understand Vaerah Vahrokha and the other people who have been here on EVE-O for a while and I know what drives them to act the way they do. In the end it's just another thread, another cloned debate of the ones we have been having for a decade. Nothing will change.

Judging by the mad inflow of "likes" I am getting, there are some others who read what I type and understand it.
They are not hi seccers either (those I know, many I don't).

They are probably as irritated as I am when you try impose your vision on the game vesting it in holyness and then steal credit when the EvE community as a whole deserves it.

Then if you also say you are in hi sec you are impersonating them. Your usage of "we" and the text content totally hint at you being an alt or something.


The reason WHs don't get mentioned in these threads is because they are alien to most of us, and they have their own effective lobby to look out for their interests. Furthermore, any pos revamp, which is part of an industry revamp, would nececessarily have input from WHers about pos and industry in WHs. It is far from a condemnation that we try not to speak for WHers, rather it is a point our "side" should be congratulated for.


So who are those "we", "our side" and so on, in a thread mostly posted by GS people?

I have no issue rebalancing anything, I just happen having a well different concept of rebalancing and that does not involve flooding the already richest and most potent alliance of EVER with more currency. Getting 100 times the industrial power is already a massively huge buff to your already staggering military potential.

Does your greed know no limit?

Historically, CCP has balanced the game in terms of min/max (what's the maximum mining income, mission income, etc). In high-sec, this is what players do, they eventually max out their trained industry or PVE skills and then keep grinding at the maximum efficiency level, for as long as they aren't bored. And when they do get bored, others take their place.

I don't think this works for low and nullsec, and I believe CCP should have different balancing criteria for these two regions of space. Lowsec and nullsec players can sometimes achieve maximum PVE income, but it's never for long; in lowsec you're constantly interrupted by pirates and PVP, and in nullsec there are periodic wars (hopefully).

CCP can't look at just the spread of ABC ores, mission reward increases with sec. rating, moon goo, etc., to determine "reward", because the risk of PVP isn't quantifiable, and it drastically lowers the "reward" that can be achieved.

I believe they should switch to a "reactive" balancing scheme for lowsec and nullsec.

For lowsec: instead of using formulas, ore distribution, etc., to code and predict "reward", look at what happened over the last 6 months; did the players consider it worth it to move to lowsec? Did the population numbers increase? The answer currently seems to be "no", so increase the rewards of lowsec and see what happens. Keep increasing, regardless of what happens in high-sec and null, until they have the population density they want.

For nullsec: life is governed by PVP, and really influenced by the periodic wars waged out there. Personal income and safety can vary wildly, depending on whether there's a war or not. Really drives the whole economy. Rather than ignoring the cycle, CCP should try to encourage it, and I'm not sure how they can cause wars when everybody gets too fat, but it's a cycle that I think the game needs. In any case, the situation is completely different from high-sec and lowsec, and so nullsec needs balancing independently of how high-sec and lowsec are balanced. Completely different method. I believe they should implement some sort of periodic (6-month? year?) movement of where the riches are that coincides with how often nullsec has gone to war before, so that wars are encouraged by the desire to chase the riches in addition to the usual politics that normally cause these wars to happen.



TLDR: Balance highsec independently of lowsec independently of nullsec. Balance high-sec with min/max hard-coded limits to income (what they've done, lowsec based on how popular (and populated) each area has been in the past, and nullsec based on the periodicity of alliance wars.

Even if CCP tripled the number of manufacturing slots in outposts it wouldn't be enough, people in nullsec would still complain. Nullsec isn't a good place to build ordinary stuff. Hi-sec industry is more reliable, cheaper, and its a safer environment to work in.

Nerfing hi-sec severely would wreck the EvE economy, people would stop building. There would be massive inflation if hi-sec were nerfed severely because goods would be scarce. Many people would not want to go to nullsec to build things and hi-sec industrialists would also be out of a job, causing them to unsub their industry accounts. Many newbs would stop building as well. In the short term, nullseccers would make some money if they could pick up the slack and sell things at inflated prices, but long term it would drain the game of industry players, killing off part of the player base, and people in nullsec would have to spend more time grinding isk to pay for ships and modules.

As far as risk vs. reward goes, manufacturing products in hi-sec are often sold at below or near build costs. The reward isn't that great building things in hi-sec. There is insane competition. It keeps things cheap though, and thats good for pvpers. Frankly, nullsec is better off with a strong hi-sec economy. They don't have to waste time building things for near zero profit, giving them more time to pvp. The risk vs. reward argument is a false argument because there isn't that much profit in hi-sec industry.

Neither will the potential new subscribers. Your stories are not very exciting.