EVE General Discussion

I do think that it sounds right that null should be capable of providing an equal industrial base to hi-sec but it doesnt seem to follow that hi-sec needs a nerf to allow that. The actual issue seems that null doesnt provide the security required for free trade which is an issue of poor governance, trade without security will never be good and poor trade wont attract industry.

My opinion would be that there should be better tools for managing space and perhaps some incentive for the creation of safe self policed systems rather than the current options which do seem entirely intended for keeping people out.

Whilst it seems obvious to me that neutral and safe trade corridors (for example) would be mutually beneficial to everyone I dont see that the current system would actually allow it in a practical way.
Perhaps some option of allowing the territory owner to advertise the safety of a system (on a map) but suffer the burden of covering the cost of losses (provided they could also place some tax on activities or act as insurance brokers). I dont intend that solution to be some example of perfection but I do think that the solution is unlikely to be 'nerf x, buff y'.

Easy access, low fees, and high security is just too over powered for any sort of nullsec buff to compensate. Highsec should be easy, but not so easy that nothing else can compete.

Well actually I believe in a usage based Sov approach, where casuals would actually be useful in maintaining sov and improving systems while hardcore players would still be worth more.

Speaking for myself I like to shoot people.

No, WoW did not start like that.
It started like an Everquest clone with characters liberally adapted from the Warhammer lore. Blizzard lost to Mythic Games so the latter won over the license (and produced the most broken and badly directed MMO of all times, shame on them!).
Blizzard lost because they could not fit into the Game Workshop high quality standards for their characters (WoW like most titles was created to appease the huge masses with crappy computers).

So they created their own "orcs and elves" and a lore and then released a 500k subs MMO featuring outdoor raid bosses, instanced 40 men hard core content and some of the most time consuming 6 men instances ever created (the Blackrock mountain one could last 6 hours+ to complete and at the time "heroic mode" instances did not even exist!).

In order to be competitive, potions etc. were needed for the first 2 expansion and it took 1 good hour a day just to farm the marterials.

I was the leader of a 160 men guild back then. We were "laid back" as in "just raiding 6 hours a day". Others would DEMAND two raids a day for up to 14 hours a day.
Despite the server being EU based we had to have an about 20 hours a day coverage, we had duplicate "officers" so to be able and field at least two x 40 men raids at any raiding time.

I had to forfeit my RL summer and Christmas vacations because just holding it all together (super hard corers create LOTS of issues and drama) was an excruciating chore.

But it all turned into VICTORY when we won and were the top of all. Reward for that effort.


Now, do you call this "casual"?

Casuals back in 2004 - 2006 were the "guys in rags" with self crafted gear who we'd farm in PvP like pigs. A warrior with a Naxxramas (T3) setup plus an healer could hold and kill 6+ of those casual players easy mode.

Then Blizzard - despite their size - understood the markets were changing.
They understood that an untapped, enormous amount of subscriptions could come if they'd make their games enjoyable to those "players in rags".

Since then, the 500k players have turned into 14M (then down once the game jumped the shark).


What could EvE learn from this? Its player base could never be as high. Space is less attractive than sword and board (but then why Star Wars and Star Treck etc. had so much of an huge fan base? Explain me please!), PvP and sandbox are hard concepts.
Notwithstanding this, EvE could have topped at 200k concurrent players. Even CCP stated they engineered the hardware for 100k+ concurrent players, this means it was in their hopes.

The EvE markets themselves are made for 100k+ players, with the current 40k-ish they are too illiquid and choppy.

As long as EvE will have "players in rags" it won't take off and at this point I fear EvE missed the train.

Yah, nullsec has plenty of other perks. Industry isn't one of them though.

I don't think nullsec and highsec industry need to be exactly the same. But highsec industry is flat out too good.

Technetium was too good, so it got nerfed with alchemy.

Ganking was too good, so they took away insurance pay outs for being Concorded, then buffed mining ships for good measure.

Titans were too good, so they took away AoE doomsdays, drones and tracking.


Highsec industry is too good. To get all those benefits one should need more than just a bare bones industry alt in an NPC school corp and the pocket change for slot use fees.

The difference, is that highsec industry is a good thing for the highsec people, while tech and ganking were not. They didn't care about the titans.

So it's never too good for them.

If we wanted to kill highseccers, we would just fly to highsec and kill them. Did it before, and can do it again.

Give the current mechanics and design goals, highsec will always be the neutral ground for doing big trades.

But even with the lack of security, there is still plenty of trade in nullsec. All those roams and fleets use ships that are often bought in nullsec. Flying to a highsec trade hub every time you need to get a new fleet ship, or even a ratting ship, is just way to tedious. Even nullsec entities with technetium fountains and shiny module farming still take them to highsec to trade.


As things stand right now though, nullsec doesn't even have the industrial capability of producing 100% of it's ammo needs, let alone any appreciable percent of ships and modules.

To balance things out, I don't really think highsec needs to get an serious nerf to its industrial output. What it does need is a bit more of a higher bar of entry. Either a decent tax (some one has to pay for Concord) or station restriction that limit access to factory/research slots to those with good standings.

Right now, it is just way to easy to do highsec production. You get the protection of Concord AND dirt cheap slot rentals AND the ability to use any station. So highsec'ers either need to earn slot access through standings, or earn it through higher fees, or some combination of the 2.

Easy access, low fees, and high security is just too over powered for any sort of nullsec buff to compensate. Highsec should be easy, but not so easy that nothing else can compete.

I will admit I am very close to you on this point

While you believe in increased costs I believe in the increase in player owned structures with people in Hi-sec still able to get 100% refines with max skills and the implant using NPC facilities.

And yes i do feel you are on the right track with increasing the cost of NPC facilities. Personally I would like to see greater benefit to players using structures that they pay for the up keep of whether it be in Hi-sec, lo-sec, Null or WH space.

it would just increase the number of oneman corps, which is already big enough