These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Null is Broken, Hisec working as intended.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#81 - 2012-12-27 11:37:18 UTC
Randolph Rothstein wrote:
the game and its features is working as intended

because it it wasnt the devs would have fixed it

the pure fact that something exists is a proof that it was intended this way - like smallpox or stephen hawking which only goes to show that The Developer can be a huge 8=============D sometimes


That's just about the stupidest **** I've read today.
Never post again.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Randolph Rothstein
whatever corp.
#82 - 2012-12-27 11:46:32 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Randolph Rothstein wrote:
the game and its features is working as intended

because it it wasnt the devs would have fixed it

the pure fact that something exists is a proof that it was intended this way - like smallpox or stephen hawking which only goes to show that The Developer can be a huge 8=============D sometimes


That's just about the stupidest **** I've read today.
Never post again.


Phrases like "Never post again" have the same amount of meaning as "If this is a sack of potatoes then you can not carrot." - Alara IonStorm
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#83 - 2012-12-27 11:48:45 UTC
Randolph Rothstein wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Randolph Rothstein wrote:
the game and its features is working as intended

because it it wasnt the devs would have fixed it

the pure fact that something exists is a proof that it was intended this way - like smallpox or stephen hawking which only goes to show that The Developer can be a huge 8=============D sometimes


That's just about the stupidest **** I've read today.
Never post again.


Phrases like "Never post again" have the same amount of meaning as "If this is a sack of potatoes then you can not carrot." - Alara IonStorm

Yes, keep trying to outdo yourself. This is entertaining.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Alara IonStorm
#84 - 2012-12-27 11:51:35 UTC
Randolph Rothstein wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Randolph Rothstein wrote:
the game and its features is working as intended

because it it wasnt the devs would have fixed it

the pure fact that something exists is a proof that it was intended this way - like smallpox or stephen hawking which only goes to show that The Developer can be a huge 8=============D sometimes


That's just about the stupidest **** I've read today.
Never post again.

Phrases like "Never post again" have the same amount of meaning as "If this is a sack of potatoes then you can not carrot." - Alara IonStorm

Actually it means to convey his wish that you no longer post on the forums, that much is obvious.

As for your initial post Dev's take time to fix things and Dev's make mistakes in implementation all the time.

Working as Intended because it exists is not an arguments, you actually have to explain why it is better.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#85 - 2012-12-27 11:51:39 UTC
Glathull wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
You are not only misreading it, you're employing an obvious fallacy.

"People build stuff in hi-sec, therefore trying to make it viable to build stuff in nullsec as well is the same as trying to turn it into hi-sec".

"****** had a moustache and you're growing a moustache, therefore you're trying to declare war on Poland and conquer eastern Europe."

Imagine that all Amarr ships had a 50% hit point penalty in 0.0; correcting this wouldn't be "turning 0.0 into hi-sec", it would just be correcting an obvious and egregious imbalance, because there's nothing inherent to the concept of hi-sec that mandates Amarr ships only being worthwhile in empire and not in null.


SO: No, building stuff isn't the defining characteristic of hi-sec. What makes hi-sec hi-sec are the characteristics that are unique to it, like CONCORD.

The ability to build stuff is explicitly enabled in all areas, even W-space; but they're not properly balanced. Hi-sec has all of the advantages and none of the disadvantages, which is obviously imbalanced. You don't get to have the best stations AND multiple stations AND the stations are free AND you can't be locked out of them AND you can't lose them AND you get free NPC protection AND you can run missions from them... something has to give here.




There's a lot of incoherent stuff here.

I'm pretty careful about fallacies, and I haven't employed any here.



You employed the exact fallacy that I demonstrated: asserting that two things with a single similar characteristic are therefore similar in all characteristics.


Glathull wrote:

According to you:

Building things is okay.

So long as . . . it's not more efficient to build things in high sec.

What you want is a null sec that has stations at least as good as high sec for, well, everything.

That's what it sounds like.




And yes, pretty much that's what it sounds like because that's what it is. That's what I'm arguing.

Hi-sec is both more efficient AND free AND safer. That's as unbalanced as a ship that's faster AND has more EHP AND has better DPS than others in its class. Why should hi-sec be the best in every respect? Why isn't there a trade-off for that CONCORD-provided safety? Shouldn't that be balanced against lower efficiency? Shouldn't a station that cost players tens of billions of ISK and which is vulnerable to being taken away from them provide some compelling efficiency advantage over one that's just put there for free and which they can't ever be locked out of and which doesn't require continuous spending on sov bills?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Peter Raptor
Galactic Hawks
#86 - 2012-12-27 11:55:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Peter Raptor
The fact is many hisec players will still venture into losec / WHs to do good PI etc there, just because they prefer hisec, doesn't mean theyll Never leave it, and so the pirates will continue to have targets, overnerf hisec, and you get fewer players in the game, and fewer targets for null/losec.

Evelopedia; 

The Amarr Empire, is known for its omnipresent religion  †  
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#87 - 2012-12-27 11:58:42 UTC
Peter Raptor wrote:
The fact is many hisec players will still venture into losec / WHs to do good PI etc there, just because they prefer hisec, doesn't mean theyll Never leave it, and so the pirates will continue to have targets, overnerf hisec, and you get fewer players in the game, and fewer targets for null/losec.

I guess it's a good thing then that nobody's suggesting an overnerf.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#88 - 2012-12-27 11:59:38 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Randolph Rothstein wrote:
the game and its features is working as intended

because it it wasnt the devs would have fixed it

the pure fact that something exists is a proof that it was intended this way - like smallpox or stephen hawking which only goes to show that The Developer can be a huge 8=============D sometimes


That's just about the stupidest **** I've read today.
Never post again.


You might want to adjust the gain on your sarcasm detector a smidge there, mate Blink

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#89 - 2012-12-27 12:00:23 UTC
Peter Raptor wrote:
The fact is many hisec players will still venture into losec / WHs to do good PI etc there, just because they prefer hisec, doesn't mean theyll Never leave it, and so the pirates will continue to have targets, overnerf hisec, and you get fewer players in the game, and fewer targets for null/losec.



What would be an "overnerf"?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
psycho freak
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#90 - 2012-12-27 12:03:23 UTC
Most ppl know what they are doing going to null and if they dont they should

pointless crying to nurf another area just becouse your area sucks

0.0 does need a buff tbh make all 0.0 npc space problem solved add another 10 regions also make eve big again

nurfing one area to boost another wont work youll just pissoff that area population and will result in unsubing and more whineing on forums

my spelling sux brb find phone number for someone who gives a fu*k

nop cant find it
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#91 - 2012-12-27 12:14:57 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Glathull wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
You are not only misreading it, you're employing an obvious fallacy.

"People build stuff in hi-sec, therefore trying to make it viable to build stuff in nullsec as well is the same as trying to turn it into hi-sec".

"****** had a moustache and you're growing a moustache, therefore you're trying to declare war on Poland and conquer eastern Europe."

Imagine that all Amarr ships had a 50% hit point penalty in 0.0; correcting this wouldn't be "turning 0.0 into hi-sec", it would just be correcting an obvious and egregious imbalance, because there's nothing inherent to the concept of hi-sec that mandates Amarr ships only being worthwhile in empire and not in null.


SO: No, building stuff isn't the defining characteristic of hi-sec. What makes hi-sec hi-sec are the characteristics that are unique to it, like CONCORD.

The ability to build stuff is explicitly enabled in all areas, even W-space; but they're not properly balanced. Hi-sec has all of the advantages and none of the disadvantages, which is obviously imbalanced. You don't get to have the best stations AND multiple stations AND the stations are free AND you can't be locked out of them AND you can't lose them AND you get free NPC protection AND you can run missions from them... something has to give here.




There's a lot of incoherent stuff here.

I'm pretty careful about fallacies, and I haven't employed any here.



You employed the exact fallacy that I demonstrated: asserting that two things with a single similar characteristic are therefore similar in all characteristics.


Glathull wrote:

According to you:

Building things is okay.

So long as . . . it's not more efficient to build things in high sec.

What you want is a null sec that has stations at least as good as high sec for, well, everything.

That's what it sounds like.




And yes, pretty much that's what it sounds like because that's what it is. That's what I'm arguing.

Hi-sec is both more efficient AND free AND safer. That's as unbalanced as a ship that's faster AND has more EHP AND has better DPS than others in its class. Why should hi-sec be the best in every respect? Why isn't there a trade-off for that CONCORD-provided safety? Shouldn't that be balanced against lower efficiency? Shouldn't a station that cost players tens of billions of ISK and which is vulnerable to being taken away from them provide some compelling efficiency advantage over one that's just put there for free and which they can't ever be locked out of and which doesn't require continuous spending on sov bills?




Your argument is that there is something wrong with people who don't go around killing each other at every chance and cooperate in an attempt to make money . . . this is somehow bad, and not what happens in the real world, and not, under any circumstances, what should happen in EVE?

You really think anyone is going to buy this idea?

Here's an idea: go pirate yourself and your nullnec alt-dolts.

Or here's an even better idea: adapt.

There are already plenty of ways to make ISK, or tears, or whatever it is you want as a reward. So go find them.

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#92 - 2012-12-27 12:16:35 UTC
Glathull wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Glathull wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
You are not only misreading it, you're employing an obvious fallacy.

"People build stuff in hi-sec, therefore trying to make it viable to build stuff in nullsec as well is the same as trying to turn it into hi-sec".

"****** had a moustache and you're growing a moustache, therefore you're trying to declare war on Poland and conquer eastern Europe."

Imagine that all Amarr ships had a 50% hit point penalty in 0.0; correcting this wouldn't be "turning 0.0 into hi-sec", it would just be correcting an obvious and egregious imbalance, because there's nothing inherent to the concept of hi-sec that mandates Amarr ships only being worthwhile in empire and not in null.


SO: No, building stuff isn't the defining characteristic of hi-sec. What makes hi-sec hi-sec are the characteristics that are unique to it, like CONCORD.

The ability to build stuff is explicitly enabled in all areas, even W-space; but they're not properly balanced. Hi-sec has all of the advantages and none of the disadvantages, which is obviously imbalanced. You don't get to have the best stations AND multiple stations AND the stations are free AND you can't be locked out of them AND you can't lose them AND you get free NPC protection AND you can run missions from them... something has to give here.




There's a lot of incoherent stuff here.

I'm pretty careful about fallacies, and I haven't employed any here.



You employed the exact fallacy that I demonstrated: asserting that two things with a single similar characteristic are therefore similar in all characteristics.


Glathull wrote:

According to you:

Building things is okay.

So long as . . . it's not more efficient to build things in high sec.

What you want is a null sec that has stations at least as good as high sec for, well, everything.

That's what it sounds like.




And yes, pretty much that's what it sounds like because that's what it is. That's what I'm arguing.

Hi-sec is both more efficient AND free AND safer. That's as unbalanced as a ship that's faster AND has more EHP AND has better DPS than others in its class. Why should hi-sec be the best in every respect? Why isn't there a trade-off for that CONCORD-provided safety? Shouldn't that be balanced against lower efficiency? Shouldn't a station that cost players tens of billions of ISK and which is vulnerable to being taken away from them provide some compelling efficiency advantage over one that's just put there for free and which they can't ever be locked out of and which doesn't require continuous spending on sov bills?




Your argument is that there is something wrong with people who don't go around killing each other at every chance and cooperate in an attempt to make money . . . this is somehow bad, and not what happens in the real world, and not, under any circumstances, what should happen in EVE?

You really think anyone is going to buy this idea?


What? No it isn't. Where did that come from?

Oh wait, I see. You've got no answer to my very pertinent question so you're trying a troll-derail.

It's OK man, I'll just take this as your admission that I'm right.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#93 - 2012-12-27 12:24:43 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Oh wait, I see. You've got no answer to my very pertinent question so you're trying a troll-derail.

It's OK man, I'll just take this as your admission that I'm right.

Achievement Unlocked: "Troll Detected" (Detect 10/10 trolls)

Next Goal: "Lock on" (Detect 50 trolls)

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 ?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#94 - 2012-12-27 12:25:25 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Randolph Rothstein wrote:
the game and its features is working as intended

because it it wasnt the devs would have fixed it

the pure fact that something exists is a proof that it was intended this way - like smallpox or stephen hawking which only goes to show that The Developer can be a huge 8=============D sometimes


That's just about the stupidest **** I've read today.
Never post again.


You might want to adjust the gain on your sarcasm detector a smidge there, mate Blink

The fact he drew an ascii dong shows that it was in no way serious.

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 ?
Confessor Golab
Lower Guk
#95 - 2012-12-27 12:27:14 UTC
Guys, Im sorry to intrude on the Eternal Debate of Nerf Others, but you seem to miss the most important point here.

Its all about profits.

CCP is not some imaginary outfit full of idealistic nerdlings , dreaming of making the most interesting and original space game for all peoples, but a company that has to pay salaries and limit layoffs in generally tanking Western economy.
All company boards are the same, and Im strangely certain the CCP one isnt an exception.
The question of the day isnt , `Oh, how to make nullsec interesting and pvp meaningfull??`
Its rather;
1.Ok guys, how do we get the soccer moms?
2.The Guild Wars 2 is tanking hard, how do we get those players today?
3. STO is making mistake on mistake, lets incentivize those customers that want a space game without a blatant cash-grab approach, and in 2 months they will buy plex for sure
3. WoW population seems to have stabilized, how do we get those customers this month?
4.TSW seems to be slowly losing subscriptions, here`s a goldmine for this trimester.

For any company, its first get new customers- the hardest part, then retain the old customers.
And its obvious for anyone that the fabled new customer wont be attracted by the perspective of being thrown in the nullsec corp at the whims of a screaming man-child with a nascent god complex.
The new customer does not want his time investment being blown by a gate camp.
The new customer wants to relax after a hard day in the office, trying desperately to hold on a job that may or may not be delocalised soon.
The new customer wants complexity that can be slowly assimilated and exploited in (seemingly) innovative ways.
And so on.

Recent CCP efforts are all in this direction, btw, to retain the economic balance, which reposes mainly on ships being destroyed and produced, all the while making more hi-sec content.
Drone nerf and the `Wholesale Aggro` experiment produced scores of expensive pve ships lost, and being replaced.
The cute new little Venture is a marvelous tool for hi-sec miners to plunge into wormholes and losec to get those Ladars.
The superb rebalanced cruisers are ready for short, cheap losec intrusions.
The Bounties system is a blatant attempt to produce some more destroyed ships in hi-sec, not because of the negligible bounties of course, but attempting to cash on the shooting sprees that seem to happen with the new criminal/suspect system.
And so on.

In my opinion, CCP will continue to move into hi-sec consensual pvp/pve hybrid direction, as that seems to satisfy the most numerically important customer base.

Its all about profits.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#96 - 2012-12-27 12:40:22 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Randolph Rothstein wrote:
the game and its features is working as intended

because it it wasnt the devs would have fixed it

the pure fact that something exists is a proof that it was intended this way - like smallpox or stephen hawking which only goes to show that The Developer can be a huge 8=============D sometimes


That's just about the stupidest **** I've read today.
Never post again.


You might want to adjust the gain on your sarcasm detector a smidge there, mate Blink

The fact he drew an ascii dong shows that it was in no way serious.


ASCII dongs are the very archetype of serious seriousity

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#97 - 2012-12-27 12:41:06 UTC
Some Rando wrote:
Peter Raptor wrote:
If CCP nerfs hisec, what have the hisec dwellers/industrialists got left

A lot of other space to do business in. High-sec should be left to new players and the little coddled children who can't handle conflict in a PvP game.

any examples of "other space"?
i'm only aware of low, sov 0.0, NPC 0.0 and wormholes. And not one of these worth spending time I PAID FOR.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#98 - 2012-12-27 12:41:41 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Peter Raptor wrote:
The fact is many hisec players will still venture into losec / WHs to do good PI etc there, just because they prefer hisec, doesn't mean theyll Never leave it, and so the pirates will continue to have targets, overnerf hisec, and you get fewer players in the game, and fewer targets for null/losec.

I guess it's a good thing then that nobody's suggesting an overnerf.


Yeah about that....

Rain6635 wrote:
it should be that high sec missions are run just for the standings, so pilots can travel through unmolested on their way back to jita. no LP or ISK rewards and bonus.

AND standings degrade over time... so you have to return to repair standings with missions periodically.

like going to the DMV or filing taxes, something that everyone has to do.

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#99 - 2012-12-27 12:42:24 UTC
Confessor Golab wrote:
Guys, Im sorry to intrude on the Eternal Debate of Nerf Others, but you seem to miss the most important point here.

Its all about profits.

CCP is not some imaginary outfit full of idealistic nerdlings , dreaming of making the most interesting and original space game for all peoples, but a company that has to pay salaries and limit layoffs in generally tanking Western economy.
All company boards are the same, and Im strangely certain the CCP one isnt an exception.
The question of the day isnt , `Oh, how to make nullsec interesting and pvp meaningfull??`
Its rather;
1.Ok guys, how do we get the soccer moms?
2.The Guild Wars 2 is tanking hard, how do we get those players today?
3. STO is making mistake on mistake, lets incentivize those customers that want a space game without a blatant cash-grab approach, and in 2 months they will buy plex for sure
3. WoW population seems to have stabilized, how do we get those customers this month?
4.TSW seems to be slowly losing subscriptions, here`s a goldmine for this trimester.

For any company, its first get new customers- the hardest part, then retain the old customers.
And its obvious for anyone that the fabled new customer wont be attracted by the perspective of being thrown in the nullsec corp at the whims of a screaming man-child with a nascent god complex.
The new customer does not want his time investment being blown by a gate camp.
The new customer wants to relax after a hard day in the office, trying desperately to hold on a job that may or may not be delocalised soon.
The new customer wants complexity that can be slowly assimilated and exploited in (seemingly) innovative ways.
And so on.

Recent CCP efforts are all in this direction, btw, to retain the economic balance, which reposes mainly on ships being destroyed and produced, all the while making more hi-sec content.
Drone nerf and the `Wholesale Aggro` experiment produced scores of expensive pve ships lost, and being replaced.
The cute new little Venture is a marvelous tool for hi-sec miners to plunge into wormholes and losec to get those Ladars.
The superb rebalanced cruisers are ready for short, cheap losec intrusions.
The Bounties system is a blatant attempt to produce some more destroyed ships in hi-sec, not because of the negligible bounties of course, but attempting to cash on the shooting sprees that seem to happen with the new criminal/suspect system.
And so on.

In my opinion, CCP will continue to move into hi-sec consensual pvp/pve hybrid direction, as that seems to satisfy the most numerically important customer base.

Its all about profits.



Ah yes, the old "silent majority" fallacy in the form of "unbalancing the game in my favour is a business necessity".

So you think CCP is eager to emulate the incredible commercial success of STO?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#100 - 2012-12-27 12:45:21 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Peter Raptor wrote:

It is Null sec that needs to be Buffed somehow, cos if you nerf the daylights outta High sec, people will have little choice but to

leave, and we'll get the same lousy player numbers as during the last unending Hulkaggeddon before the Mining Barge Buff.

The problem is that many aspects of highsec are offered in near infinite amount and without cost. Adjusting aspects of nullsec to be more appealing then things that are free, extremely convenient and wholly without risk would be far more game breaking then merely downgrading specific highsec services. If there was a way to achieve this without touching highsec I would be entirely for it since it would create much less fuss.

there is way: add CONCORD. It's quite simple isn't it? Lol

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"