These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Should nullsec industry > hisec industry?

First post First post
Author
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#201 - 2013-03-06 14:26:55 UTC
Fearghaz Tiwas wrote:

Yeah, nothing wrong with that. The point is, it should be worthwhile trying to sort out getting those 4-5 people together. At present, it's a massive ball drag for minimal benefit.


It was totally worthwhile... if I'd been in a PvP roam mood. Most of those who go in null sec go there for the PvP, it's easy to convince them to get out for a roam but what if quite often I just had 20 minutes or wanted to do something in freedom without having to get involved in voice comms and whatsnot?
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#202 - 2013-03-06 14:27:00 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:

If the market grows to the point where the jump freighter pilots have trouble keeping up, then nullsec might need a buff to industry, but I just really don't see that happening without the addition of a lot of scalable content to nullsec that doesn't seem to be in the works.


Perhaps that might be something to do with the fact that so many "0.0 players" actually keep more characters in hi-sec than they do in their own space?

Maybe because there just isn't enough to do in sovereign nullsec, even without industry entering the equation.

NPC space (high, low and null) offers a richer play experience across the board, without the headaches of structure grinding.


It's too hard to do 1 + 1.

When I lived in null sec I had my hi sec alts including a perfectly identical pilot to this character. Why? Because industry argument is irrelevant, in the end when you want to just log in and do "something" and there are no particular corp FCs online (most of the day till prime time) then one might want to just play without all the encumberance of having to scout, having to permanently stay on voice comm (listening to TV or music is good), having to find 4-5 people just to leave the station and move around. Then hi sec is the perfect place to d!ck around before "serious business" starts in the corp.
That's why I and many others have hi sec alts, to have a "slack" version of their gameplay to relax from the important internet spaceships business due at 8pm.

A fairly typical arrangement, from what I've seen of serious players.

Nullsec is the high-end battleground.
Very few people actually live there, and the ones that try end up burning out on the limited content pretty quickly.

There are exceptions, of course, but I've seen too many people try to go all-out into sov null, burn out after about 6 months, and simply leave the game completely at that point.

There's something wrong there, and I don't think that having to ship goods in from highsec trade hubs is even on the same continent as where the real problems lie.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs

La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#203 - 2013-03-06 14:29:20 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:

I just noticed this one

You really should read more of the forums before you open your mouth or even the post you tl;dr.


Wow, something terrible must of happened while I was away to have Frying Doom calling out a bad poster.

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

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#204 - 2013-03-06 14:31:00 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Fearghaz Tiwas wrote:

For a start point then, what do you think of the changes I have suggested? I've always said, it isn't just about "nerfing" high sec. The current way it is makes no sense. The income that market traders make is obscene. There is no risk in hi sec, and whatever you say, sov null is still a lot more risk, and needs a lot more effort than it too. There is simply no reason to not stay in high. This is a problem. CCP did not give us this great sandbox for us to not use all of the space available. Not 4 systems in high sec.


What I think? That hi sec is a flawed stepping stone and the whole game is adversely affected by it, and it should be removed and replaced with a smooth degree of risky-ness. From full hi sec enforced only on new players starting systems down to -1.0 with a series of gradual changes, so everybody can actively pick their "grade" of risk vs reward.

If we have to alter the whole game, we may as well change it for the better, and not just flip the current "compartiments" around, which still keeps the awful compartiments philosophy alive.


That's a familiar concept from somewhere....


Now compare it with the "nerf hi sec, buff (we only care for) sov null sec" threads and draw a comparison with yours.
Yours and mine are a whole systematic approach, not the same stuff you find in GD.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#205 - 2013-03-06 14:33:17 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:


And frankly, if you can't see the ripple effects of your own law applied to the game modifications being demanded, I have nothing else to say.


My Law concerns the effects of special privileges. And, indeed, the effects of the massive special privileges granted to hi-sec producers definitely provide a good example.

Oh but wait wait I'm forgetting that we have to reduce the effects of those privileges vvvveeerrrrryyy sssssllllloooowwwlllllyyyy or the beneficiaries of those privileges won't be able to maintain their status. What a catastrophe that would be.


No, your are forgetting the corollary to your own law: that nerfing something to hurt the "vets" is going to massively impair the new players.

What once you i.e. reduce hi sec refinery down to null sec value? Guess what, those old enough won't give a crap, they have skills and implants, the weaker players get the bone.


So it's fine for weaker players in 0.0 to "get the bone", because it's only a problem when that happens in hi-sec?


I did not see a single attempt to request new 0.0 players improvements, only lots of attempts to request hi sec nerfs. That's also part of why I don't see these threads as anything but an one side attempt to grab more wealth for the specific subset of established, sov only players.
Fearghaz Tiwas
Perkone
Caldari State
#206 - 2013-03-06 14:34:49 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Fearghaz Tiwas wrote:

For a start point then, what do you think of the changes I have suggested? I've always said, it isn't just about "nerfing" high sec. The current way it is makes no sense. The income that market traders make is obscene. There is no risk in hi sec, and whatever you say, sov null is still a lot more risk, and needs a lot more effort than it too. There is simply no reason to not stay in high. This is a problem. CCP did not give us this great sandbox for us to not use all of the space available. Not 4 systems in high sec.


What I think? That hi sec is a flawed stepping stone and the whole game is adversely affected by it, and it should be removed and replaced with a smooth degree of risky-ness. From full hi sec enforced only on new players starting systems down to -1.0 with a series of gradual changes, so everybody can actively pick their "grade" of risk vs reward.

If we have to alter the whole game, we may as well change it for the better, and not just flip the current "compartiments" around, which still keeps the awful compartiments philosophy alive.


That's a familiar concept from somewhere....


Now compare it with the "nerf hi sec, buff (we only care for) sov null sec" threads and draw a comparison with yours.
Yours and mine are a whole systematic approach, not the same stuff you find in GD.


And compare what you propose, Malcanis proposed, and what I have proposed, and they are all along a similar line. We all think people need a push from Hi sec or that hi sec needs to shrink. Surely this means, that there is something inherently wrong with hi sec
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#207 - 2013-03-06 14:37:38 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
You're neglecting to take into account the huge investment of ISK, time and effort to secure that security in sov space. It doesn't just happen by itself. And it's still less secure than hi-sec.


Being able to shape your own empire is the reward, not a cost. If you don't like that ability, nothing forces you to embark into it.


False: Building the empire is a cost, those POS/TCU/POCO/system upgrades/outposts/sov/SBU bills don't come free as a "reward." I would think as an alleged former nullsec person you would know this and instead of trying to mislead people here by leaving out that key point, you would find a decent argument that supports your cause of keeping highsec the best.

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

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#208 - 2013-03-06 14:39:22 UTC
Fearghaz Tiwas wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Fearghaz Tiwas wrote:

For a start point then, what do you think of the changes I have suggested? I've always said, it isn't just about "nerfing" high sec. The current way it is makes no sense. The income that market traders make is obscene. There is no risk in hi sec, and whatever you say, sov null is still a lot more risk, and needs a lot more effort than it too. There is simply no reason to not stay in high. This is a problem. CCP did not give us this great sandbox for us to not use all of the space available. Not 4 systems in high sec.


What I think? That hi sec is a flawed stepping stone and the whole game is adversely affected by it, and it should be removed and replaced with a smooth degree of risky-ness. From full hi sec enforced only on new players starting systems down to -1.0 with a series of gradual changes, so everybody can actively pick their "grade" of risk vs reward.

If we have to alter the whole game, we may as well change it for the better, and not just flip the current "compartiments" around, which still keeps the awful compartiments philosophy alive.


TBF mate, you've gone a long way to redeem yourself in my eyes with that. From the discussion so far I had come to the (apparently false) conclusion that you were just a dont touch my hisec bear. Would you like to expand on how a 1.0 system might be different to a 0.7 system? I agree with you, that Hi sec is indeed a flawed stepping stone, it's just I want people who do decide to jump off to not feel like they need to climb back onto it.


Just for a starter I proposed to remove the current awful scanner and replace it with a more modern radar. That thing (and local) would provide less and less information the lowest in security you go. Human players lock times would be higher on higher sec as well, possibly with active defense like "lock breaker" mods to click before the other player got a solid lock on you. Capitals and bubbles would still be limited to lowest sec areas, supercaps only in 0.1 downwards.

Player owned stations and POSes would be available at every sec, with increasing kinds of activities and efficiency and slots enabled as you go lower in sec (a bit like now, where you can't react in hi sec etc.).

The ways are possible, I have played so many PvP games in a decade, some of them dealt with "full PvP" without all the aerobatics EvE goes through to keep an artificial safe zone.
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#209 - 2013-03-06 14:41:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Arduemont
Primary Me wrote:
Should nullsec industry > hisec industry?


It's a risk reward thing. Currently there is significantly more risk being an Indy pilot in 0.0 than there is in highsec... which is where you would expect the rewards to be better in 0.0.. Except it's not. It's actually worse. Quite a lot worse.

If you offset the cost of loosing ships, Industry should be AT LEAST as rewarding and effective as highsec. At the moment, it's no where near.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf

La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#210 - 2013-03-06 14:43:36 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

I did not see a single attempt to request new 0.0 players improvements, only lots of attempts to request hi sec nerfs. That's also part of why I don't see these threads as anything but an one side attempt to grab more wealth for the specific subset of established, sov only players.


That's because we provide our own content and "new player experience." While it would be a good idea we haven't needed it as of yet. An actual player showing the newbee how to move their ship and explaining things to them works far better than the career missions.

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

Fearghaz Tiwas
Perkone
Caldari State
#211 - 2013-03-06 14:44:06 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Fearghaz Tiwas wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Fearghaz Tiwas wrote:

For a start point then, what do you think of the changes I have suggested? I've always said, it isn't just about "nerfing" high sec. The current way it is makes no sense. The income that market traders make is obscene. There is no risk in hi sec, and whatever you say, sov null is still a lot more risk, and needs a lot more effort than it too. There is simply no reason to not stay in high. This is a problem. CCP did not give us this great sandbox for us to not use all of the space available. Not 4 systems in high sec.


What I think? That hi sec is a flawed stepping stone and the whole game is adversely affected by it, and it should be removed and replaced with a smooth degree of risky-ness. From full hi sec enforced only on new players starting systems down to -1.0 with a series of gradual changes, so everybody can actively pick their "grade" of risk vs reward.

If we have to alter the whole game, we may as well change it for the better, and not just flip the current "compartiments" around, which still keeps the awful compartiments philosophy alive.


TBF mate, you've gone a long way to redeem yourself in my eyes with that. From the discussion so far I had come to the (apparently false) conclusion that you were just a dont touch my hisec bear. Would you like to expand on how a 1.0 system might be different to a 0.7 system? I agree with you, that Hi sec is indeed a flawed stepping stone, it's just I want people who do decide to jump off to not feel like they need to climb back onto it.


Just for a starter I proposed to remove the current awful scanner and replace it with a more modern radar. That thing (and local) would provide less and less information the lowest in security you go. Human players lock times would be higher on higher sec as well, possibly with active defense like "lock breaker" mods to click before the other player got a solid lock on you. Capitals and bubbles would still be limited to lowest sec areas, supercaps only in 0.1 downwards.

Player owned stations and POSes would be available at every sec, with increasing kinds of activities and efficiency and slots enabled as you go lower in sec (a bit like now, where you can't react in hi sec etc.).

The ways are possible, I have played so many PvP games in a decade, some of them dealt with "full PvP" without all the aerobatics EvE goes through to keep an artificial safe zone.



I dunno about this, partcularly from a lore POV. I can't come up with reasons why, but I don't really like most of these changes. Seems like what you want is more like a different game altogether. I'll think a little more though. After all, its change, and Change, is not good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLDmlY9yJZo
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#212 - 2013-03-06 14:46:59 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
You're neglecting to take into account the huge investment of ISK, time and effort to secure that security in sov space. It doesn't just happen by itself. And it's still less secure than hi-sec.


Being able to shape your own empire is the reward, not a cost. If you don't like that ability, nothing forces you to embark into it.


False: Building the empire is a cost, those POS/TCU/POCO/system upgrades/outposts/sov/SBU bills don't come free as a "reward." I would think as an alleged former nullsec person you would know this and instead of trying to mislead people here by leaving out that key point, you would find a decent argument that supports your cause of keeping highsec the best.


Every single, every single PvP MMO I have played had conquerable castles, keeps, stations and whatsnot where the only reward was being able to show your flag and tabard, sometimes getting a 5% buff at what gold NPCs dropped as loot and similar trifles. We had to pay tons of money a day as "upkeeping", keep 24/7 guard at our conquests because there were like 20 available structures to fight for between the whole player base and all wanted to capture your stuff.

Seriously, if you don't feel like you have achieved a reward for holding what you conquered, you are playing a clerk game where all you are in for, is the union contracted base wage.

Even the worst BoB took pride for their conquests as "per se" e-peen display.
You new(er)comers seem only interested at some pathetic paid fee for a job you were not even really after.
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#213 - 2013-03-06 14:47:46 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:


And frankly, if you can't see the ripple effects of your own law applied to the game modifications being demanded, I have nothing else to say.


My Law concerns the effects of special privileges. And, indeed, the effects of the massive special privileges granted to hi-sec producers definitely provide a good example.

Oh but wait wait I'm forgetting that we have to reduce the effects of those privileges vvvveeerrrrryyy sssssllllloooowwwlllllyyyy or the beneficiaries of those privileges won't be able to maintain their status. What a catastrophe that would be.


No, your are forgetting the corollary to your own law: that nerfing something to hurt the "vets" is going to massively impair the new players.

What once you i.e. reduce hi sec refinery down to null sec value? Guess what, those old enough won't give a crap, they have skills and implants, the weaker players get the bone.


So it's fine for weaker players in 0.0 to "get the bone", because it's only a problem when that happens in hi-sec?


I did not see a single attempt to request new 0.0 players improvements, only lots of attempts to request hi sec nerfs. That's also part of why I don't see these threads as anything but an one side attempt to grab more wealth for the specific subset of established, sov only players.


The reason is that for what is being asked, "better industry in nullsec", would either require that nullsec have safe travel with concord, lots more stations with NPC production facilities, of which the player base can already build with POS's but don't want that kind of investment/liability, or turn Hisec into a wasteland where there is no game.

The fact is null can already have the production they're whining about. They just don't want to invest the time and effort that it takes in that kind of environment. They want a hisec wonderland in their nullsec.

This argument is a moot point because the problems nullsec bears are whining about are the exact factors that make nullsec nullsec and not hisec.

Don't ban me, bro!

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#214 - 2013-03-06 14:49:39 UTC
Fearghaz Tiwas wrote:
I dunno about this, partcularly from a lore POV. I can't come up with reasons why, but I don't really like most of these changes. Seems like what you want is more like a different game altogether. I'll think a little more though. After all, its change, and Change, is not good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLDmlY9yJZo


I understand most won't like what I'd like and unlike others, I don't spam 1 thread a day to push my wishes on the face of everybody else.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#215 - 2013-03-06 14:53:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
My word, this certainly strikes a familiar tone.

"Those who defended slavery rose to the challenge set forth by the Abolitionists. The defenders of slavery included economics, history, religion, legality, social good, and even humanitarianism, to further their arguments.

Defenders of slavery argued that the sudden end to the slave economy would have had a profound and killing economic impact in the South where reliance on slave labor was the foundation of their economy. The cotton economy would collapse. The tobacco crop would dry in the fields. Rice would cease being profitable.

Defenders of slavery argued that if all the slaves were freed, there would be widespread unemployment and chaos. This would lead to uprisings, bloodshed, and anarchy"


As we can see, history shows us that there is no injustice so blatant and monstrous that those who benefit by it will not produce passionate arguments to support it.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#216 - 2013-03-06 14:57:44 UTC
Ban Amarr!

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs

La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#217 - 2013-03-06 15:00:32 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

Every single, every single PvP MMO I have played had conquerable castles, keeps, stations and whatsnot where the only reward was being able to show your flag and tabard, sometimes getting a 5% buff at what gold NPCs dropped as loot and similar trifles. We had to pay tons of money a day as "upkeeping", keep 24/7 guard at our conquests because there were like 20 available structures to fight for between the whole player base and all wanted to capture your stuff.

Seriously, if you don't feel like you have achieved a reward for holding what you conquered, you are playing a clerk game where all you are in for, is the union contracted base wage.

Even the worst BoB took pride for their conquests as "per se" e-peen display.
You new(er)comers seem only interested at some pathetic paid fee for a job you were not even really after.


Yep and all those words you typed so eloquently ignore the fact that one must pay for their building blocks before they can build anything. Building the empire which is analogous to "shaping your empire" is a cost not a reward. That's not even taking into account the ongoing costs of securing your space and maintaining 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

Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#218 - 2013-03-06 15:05:08 UTC
Anchor-anywhere modular POS will solve the industrial imbalance (if CCP allows it to).

It's already been stated by a dev as being in the plan.

You've got bigger problems than this, especially since even Goonswarm space which should be the friendliest and most entertaining space to play in for new players that are part of the empire is a pale shadow of the most backwater NPC regions for activity levels.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs

Wigglenomics
C O C A I N E
#219 - 2013-03-06 15:07:53 UTC


There is no RISK in Nullsecc when you're blue to 50% of it dude.

I am so sick and tired of these people going around talking about Risk VS Reward....and these people are usually folks in CFC/HBC.

Really? What RISK do you have in Nullsec that Highseccers don't have?
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#220 - 2013-03-06 15:10:19 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
My word, this certainly strikes a familiar tone.

...
As we can see, history shows us that there is no injustice so blatant and monstrous that those who benefit by it will not produce passionate arguments to support it.


As we can see we are almost at Godwin's Law thread status. Thanks for pushing forward to it.