These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

You CANT Nerf HighSec!

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#961 - 2012-12-24 05:20:28 UTC
Tesal wrote:
Your proposals, if they went forward, would definitely raise prices and null would consider itself buffed and hi-sec nerfed. I doubt it would have any effect on average players other than making things more expensive, so you have to grind more to afford the same thing. If hi-sec can't compete people won't build there any more. The people in hi-sec would have no choice other than to move to null to continue their industrial activities or unsub their industrial characters.

Your proposals would also place industry firmly within the grasp of established nullsec alliances, shifting profits to them and away from hi-sec. I would view that as a negative thing. Nullsec is run by giant blue blobs and this would centralize even more power in their hands. In my view, nullsec is broken and this would make it even more broken. I would much rather have things the way they are than to change things as you have proposed.

I would also ask the larger philosophical question why is it necessary to shift industry to nullsec. The same things would be produced and in some cases it would even be the same alts producing the same stuff. The only thing that would be different would be the location. There is nothing stopping anyone from producing the same goods in hi-sec. What is the overriding concern that would make it necessary to shift locations for production, according to the economy it doesn't matter where it gets produced as long as it gets produced.. In my view its an irrational desire that necessitates the switching of location. It would only serve to make logistics harder and goods more expensive.

*edit* I don't buy the idea that making things more expensive doesn't matter.


It would force people into null just as much as moving L5s to lowsec forced them into low sec Roll, nice attempt at misdirection and rehashing things that have been gone over ad nauseum. The point isn't to make it so highsec cannot compete the point is to give an incentive to do industry in null. Currently there is no incentive and currently almost-no industry is done in nullsec, imagine that.

So is that goonspiracy I'm seeing "grasp off established nullsec alliances." How would providing an incentive for industry outside of highsec break nullsec?

It is necessary to give people a reason to do things in nullsec, it comes in the form of an incentive to do industry there. Yes the incentive is necessary because right now industry is to arduous to do for the risk required. Building in nullsec gives people things to protect and others targets to destroy. This is pretty much the farms and fields approach CCP wants to take with nullsec. Its a potential conflict driver and as you complained about blues I'm sure you'd be happy with more wars and territorial conquest going on in nullsec.

How do we accomplish all this with a combination of nerfs to highsec industry and buffs to nullsec industry. The details can be argued over in another thread, this is simply what needs to happen.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#962 - 2012-12-24 05:23:30 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:

What part of "sandbox game" is so hard for you to understand?

If half the user base is perfectly happy nibbling on rocks and running highsec missions and doesn't want to stretch into more challenging aspects of the game, that's twice as many players as there would be if those features were made too difficult for them to access.

That's twice the market size (well, maybe only 30% more market, but still bigger), twice the potential PvP targets, twice the jeers and twice the tears.

If all you care about is isk, I've got a 128 bit integer with your name on it on a private server. Have as much as you want, but you have to play alone.


We aren't arguing over "sandbox game" you're trying to tell me why isk/hr is a bad metric for reward. So far all you've got is because of that metric it makes me a sad, terrible person IRL. Now I'll say it again to you, if you have a better quantifiable metric for reward please let us know.

I'll keep it in simple terms here so don't go getting pedantic on me, give us something easily measured, counted, and compared.

No, you are trying to convince me that any metric of reward has to be quantifiable directly on a player-by-player basis, and I'm telling you that's poppycock.

The purpose of the game is in the playing of it.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Tesal
#963 - 2012-12-24 05:26:44 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
Then you should try reading the threads you're supposedly responding to. Right now the vast majority of industry is totally canned and creates no greater content beyond itself. By making it rewarding to do industry where people want to live and forcing chains to open themselves up to disruption or attack if they want to be competitive, the current mundane production of goods becomes a source of content. Your suggestion that the biggest risk in industry is that people might sell at below the cost to produce is the most blatant proof of its utter dysfunction one could ask for.



Give in to your hatred, strike me down with all of your force.

In an age of jump freighters and giant blue blobs, do you honestly believe supply lines would be open to attack? I don't.
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#964 - 2012-12-24 05:27:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Buzzy Warstl
La Nariz wrote:
Tesal wrote:

The risk reward argument falls flat because the reward in hi-sec industry is small, often items are put up below build cost. The intense competition keeps prices and profits low. The reward is in line with the risk. Buffing nullsec industry won't change low prices. Nerfing hi-sec severely would have negative consequences for the game such as inflation, as prices rise due to a lack of competition, and people quitting industry in hi-sec.


Yet the reward for highsec industry is still higher than the reward for nullsec industry. The argument does not fall flat. The risk is in highsec is zero yet the risk in nullsec is high. Prices rising are perfectly fine, prices going up do not automatically mean inflation is the cause. Once again someone trots out the "if highsec is nerfed people will quit" argument which has been defeated way too many times in this thread for me to get into it again so I'm going to leave it with a flat, you are wrong.

If the reward for nullsec industry is so awful, why is there a problem with supercap proliferation?

Perhaps you mean reward for the ordinary nullsec player, who is completely locked out of industry there, but that is a problem that the fine folks of Goonswarm can fix for themselves within their alliance space. All that needs to happen is rent out all those newly idle CSAA POS facilities to the folks in your alliance that want to use the industrial space for other things.

There's nothing stopping you but you.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Tesal
#965 - 2012-12-24 05:30:03 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Tesal wrote:
Your proposals, if they went forward, would definitely raise prices and null would consider itself buffed and hi-sec nerfed. I doubt it would have any effect on average players other than making things more expensive, so you have to grind more to afford the same thing. If hi-sec can't compete people won't build there any more. The people in hi-sec would have no choice other than to move to null to continue their industrial activities or unsub their industrial characters.

Your proposals would also place industry firmly within the grasp of established nullsec alliances, shifting profits to them and away from hi-sec. I would view that as a negative thing. Nullsec is run by giant blue blobs and this would centralize even more power in their hands. In my view, nullsec is broken and this would make it even more broken. I would much rather have things the way they are than to change things as you have proposed.

I would also ask the larger philosophical question why is it necessary to shift industry to nullsec. The same things would be produced and in some cases it would even be the same alts producing the same stuff. The only thing that would be different would be the location. There is nothing stopping anyone from producing the same goods in hi-sec. What is the overriding concern that would make it necessary to shift locations for production, according to the economy it doesn't matter where it gets produced as long as it gets produced.. In my view its an irrational desire that necessitates the switching of location. It would only serve to make logistics harder and goods more expensive.

*edit* I don't buy the idea that making things more expensive doesn't matter.


It would force people into null just as much as moving L5s to lowsec forced them into low sec Roll, nice attempt at misdirection and rehashing things that have been gone over ad nauseum. The point isn't to make it so highsec cannot compete the point is to give an incentive to do industry in null. Currently there is no incentive and currently almost-no industry is done in nullsec, imagine that.

So is that goonspiracy I'm seeing "grasp off established nullsec alliances." How would providing an incentive for industry outside of highsec break nullsec?

It is necessary to give people a reason to do things in nullsec, it comes in the form of an incentive to do industry there. Yes the incentive is necessary because right now industry is to arduous to do for the risk required. Building in nullsec gives people things to protect and others targets to destroy. This is pretty much the farms and fields approach CCP wants to take with nullsec. Its a potential conflict driver and as you complained about blues I'm sure you'd be happy with more wars and territorial conquest going on in nullsec.

How do we accomplish all this with a combination of nerfs to highsec industry and buffs to nullsec industry. The details can be argued over in another thread, this is simply what needs to happen.


Just because you assert something over and over doesn't make it true. Your grasping at something to do in nullsec? try pvp. Leave industry to the professionals.
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#966 - 2012-12-24 05:32:08 UTC
Geeze, this thread has gone places.

We can fix high sec without nerfing it, just double rewards in low, null, and wormholes. Solved.

Things are only impossible until they are not.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#967 - 2012-12-24 05:32:26 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
No, you are trying to convince me that any metric of reward has to be quantifiable directly on a player-by-player basis, and I'm telling you that's poppycock.

The purpose of the game is in the playing of it.


Alright smart one tell me how I am to compare reward in a meaningful way then without some quantifiable metric? I'll answer that for you, you can't. So do you have a better quantifiable metric, if not then go away or find some other point to argue.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#968 - 2012-12-24 05:32:44 UTC
Tesal wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Tesal wrote:
The only way to buff nullsec industry would be to raise prices, Jita is too efficient and keeps prices low. Nullsec industry does suck. But it will continue to suck even if manufacturing slots were increased. The only way to raise prices would be to nerf hi-sec severely and as I have stated previously, that comes with its own set of problems.

The risk in hi-sec is losing money on what you produce. This happens a lot. People produce at a loss. Its an economic risk, not a safety risk. Its market PvP.


I think trade is fine. How about nerfing refine rates in highsec, making it cost more to rent slots in highsec, allowing people to do something akin to suicide ganking a job, how about a tax on industry in highsec. Those are all very viable ideas that don't allow promoting mudflation via avoiding nerfs and only buffing things. Those things coupled with fixing outposts, stations per system, and the POS revamp have the potential of revitalizing industry in all sec areas.

This is very relevant to you from the first page of the thread:

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.


Your proposals, if they went forward, would definitely raise prices and null would consider itself buffed and hi-sec nerfed. I doubt it would have any effect on average players other than making things more expensive, so you have to grind more to afford the same thing. If hi-sec can't compete people won't build there any more. The people in hi-sec would have no choice other than to move to null to continue their industrial activities or unsub their industrial characters.

Your proposals would also place industry firmly within the grasp of established nullsec alliances, shifting profits to them and away from hi-sec. I would view that as a negative thing. Nullsec is run by giant blue blobs and this would centralize even more power in their hands. In my view, nullsec is broken and this would make it even more broken. I would much rather have things the way they are than to change things as you have proposed.

I would also ask the larger philosophical question why is it necessary to shift industry to nullsec. The same things would be produced and in some cases it would even be the same alts producing the same stuff. The only thing that would be different would be the location. There is nothing stopping anyone from producing the same goods in hi-sec. What is the overriding concern that would make it necessary to shift locations for production, according to the economy it doesn't matter where it gets produced as long as it gets produced.. In my view its an irrational desire that necessitates the switching of location. It would only serve to make logistics harder and goods more expensive.

*edit* I don't buy the idea that making things more expensive doesn't matter.


Scared of a little competition?
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#969 - 2012-12-24 05:35:51 UTC
Tesal wrote:

Just because you assert something over and over doesn't make it true. Your grasping at something to do in nullsec? try pvp. Leave industry to the professionals.


And so your argument boils down to "lol yeah right." What a good convincing argument. You know laymen do industry too maybe we should do whats best for all of the game instead of whats best for just one section of it.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#970 - 2012-12-24 05:36:28 UTC
Tesal wrote:
Give in to your hatred, strike me down with all of your force.

In an age of jump freighters and giant blue blobs, do you honestly believe supply lines would be open to attack? I don't.


You're really stretching now.

Hand in hand with an industry revamp is a pos revamp, where a ton of industry will be done in space in easy to use, highly scalable, and modular pos that are vulnerable to even small gangs.

See, this discussion is already so far beyond you, you're lucky we're bothering to keep you informed.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#971 - 2012-12-24 05:37:07 UTC
masternerdguy wrote:
Geeze, this thread has gone places.

We can fix high sec without nerfing it, just double rewards in low, null, and wormholes. Solved.


Prove it, address all of the points in the OP that are arguing against you quite well.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Tesal
#972 - 2012-12-24 05:44:17 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Tesal wrote:

Just because you assert something over and over doesn't make it true. Your grasping at something to do in nullsec? try pvp. Leave industry to the professionals.


And so your argument boils down to "lol yeah right." What a good convincing argument. You know laymen do industry too maybe we should do whats best for all of the game instead of whats best for just one section of it.


No, thats not my argument. Leaving industry in hi-sec is whats best for the game. We have gone an entire decade with hi-sec as it is and it seems to be working OK. Your proposals break things far more than they fix things. I get that you are bored, and have nothing to do, but thats your own fault because you have half of New Eden blue. I hope CCP doesn't listen to you.
EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#973 - 2012-12-24 05:44:21 UTC
The current install cost to produce something in highsec is 1000 (one-thousand) isk. On top of that, the cost per hour is 333 (three-hundred-and-thirty-three) isk.

I seriously hope you don't think that if you spend any more than 5000 isk on producing a battleship, it would result in the destruction of the highsec economy and the game.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#974 - 2012-12-24 06:01:34 UTC
Tesal wrote:
No, thats not my argument. Leaving industry in hi-sec is whats best for the game. We have gone an entire decade with hi-sec as it is and it seems to be working OK. Your proposals break things far more than they fix things. I get that you are bored, and have nothing to do, but thats your own fault because you have half of New Eden blue. I hope CCP doesn't listen to you.


Just because you assert something over and over doesn't make it true.

Now I'm going to try and treat you like an adult here and assume that you have been actually reading the things you respond to as well as that you have read the thread. Explain to me why leaving industry in highsec is whats best for the game, where is the data that shows this? Explain to me why it is okay for industry to not be viable in lowsec and nullsec where they have to risk literally everything to do something while being rewarded less than highsec. What do my proposals break? Whats the problem with having a good diplomatic team? Why is it okay for one section of the game to completely ignore risk:reward.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#975 - 2012-12-24 06:17:41 UTC  |  Edited by: masternerdguy
La Nariz wrote:
masternerdguy wrote:
Geeze, this thread has gone places.

We can fix high sec without nerfing it, just double rewards in low, null, and wormholes. Solved.


Prove it, address all of the points in the OP that are arguing against you quite well.


You misunderstood what I said let me clarify. They'll whine if you nerf hi sec, so just buff everything else instead. Same effect, and they don't cry.

EDIT: My preference would be for CCP to nerf highsec into the gutter it deserves, however I'm being a realist on this one.

Things are only impossible until they are not.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#976 - 2012-12-24 06:31:30 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
^^: Sorry dude took you for the average highsec apologist that does not read anything.

Buzzy Warstl wrote:

If the reward for nullsec industry is so awful, why is there a problem with supercap proliferation?

Perhaps you mean reward for the ordinary nullsec player, who is completely locked out of industry there, but that is a problem that the fine folks of Goonswarm can fix for themselves within their alliance space. All that needs to happen is rent out all those newly idle CSAA POS facilities to the folks in your alliance that want to use the industrial space for other things.

There's nothing stopping you but you.


So now we waffled from our emotional appeals about a quantifiable reward metric to supercaps. The supercap proliferation is a problem because they don't die enough and because they were (probably still are) horribly unbalanced. Supercap production is industry but has nothing to do with the problem if people could build them in highsec they would because nullsec industry is in shambles.

There's nothing stopping me except for horrible mechanics that can only be changed by CCP.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#977 - 2012-12-24 07:18:54 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Tesal wrote:

The risk reward argument falls flat because the reward in hi-sec industry is small, often items are put up below build cost. The intense competition keeps prices and profits low. The reward is in line with the risk. Buffing nullsec industry won't change low prices. Nerfing hi-sec severely would have negative consequences for the game such as inflation, as prices rise due to a lack of competition, and people quitting industry in hi-sec.


Yet the reward for highsec industry is still higher than the reward for nullsec industry. The argument does not fall flat. The risk is in highsec is zero yet the risk in nullsec is high. Prices rising are perfectly fine, prices going up do not automatically mean inflation is the cause. Once again someone trots out the "if highsec is nerfed people will quit" argument which has been defeated way too many times in this thread for me to get into it again so I'm going to leave it with a flat, you are wrong.

If the reward for nullsec industry is so awful, why is there a problem with supercap proliferation?


If Bolivia is so poor, how come they produce so much cocaine?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Aramatheia
Tiffany and Co.
#978 - 2012-12-24 07:35:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Aramatheia
Bump Truck wrote:
Brooks Puuntai wrote:
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.




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.


cause everyone in highsec can shoot and kill a neutral on grid immediately keeping thier barges safe and secure, right? right??

Oh and that is without thier ship being blown up by some godly, though slow, npc doomfleet
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#979 - 2012-12-24 07:59:45 UTC
Aramatheia wrote:
cause everyone in highsec can shoot and kill a neutral on grid immediately keeping thier barges safe and secure, right? right??

Oh and that is without thier ship being blown up by some godly, though slow, npc doomfleet

Is CONCORD not fast enough to save your hull's structural integrity from the blasters? Or maybe they used artillery?

Better ask for some more EHP buffs, you know it's for the good of EVE that you be safer in highsec.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#980 - 2012-12-24 08:41:07 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:


As it stands, the utter security of hisec leads to canned solo gameplay



Could you please expand about what "canned" gameplay hi sec leads to?


Varius Xeral wrote:

where something of any significance rarely happens


Leaders create content, grunts in the end want to shape up and tend to their farms.

In case you did not notice, a valid request by null sec grunts is to be given farms to tend to.
It's the human nature, even soldiers one day go home and join their family. Where something of any significance rarely happens.

That is, if you want to bring this point to discriminate hi sec civilians vs farms tending soldiers in null sec, this point is quite weak.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials