EVE General Discussion

"there is zero reason to lose a single ship in high sec"

What? How blind you are to the reality of new players? New players learning this game will lose ships to belt rats, lose ships on early missions and will without a doubt lose ships during wardecs and lose a hauler trying to move their entire life supply to greener pastures. Oh, and they will lose a ship or two to suicide ganking or baiting.

Seriously, you are blind to just how difficult this game is to learn in the early days. The average player will lose a lot. And when their income (today) in hisec is slave level survival wages, it hurts to lose what little they have.

Cutting down hisec opportunities will only curb game growth. I would rather see more "reason" to move on to low/null/wh space. Buff them--don't nerf the terrible excuse for an early game experience.

The idea behind more risk is more reward.

this is just great idea. Nothing more.

Just say me: should i get bigger payout from regular lvl4 if i will not tank my carebear mobile and increase my risk to lose it? Nope.

So this great idea can't be used as-is.

Sometimes the risk is too high to be balanced by quantity rewards and only quality rewards will do.

Nullsec industry is already better in that you can do things with it that you cannot do in highsec. People do those things because they value them enough for the risk to be worthwhile.

Adding more things that you can only do with nullsec industry is something that can work, and something that I expect to see in the future.

Trying to make nullsec "better highsec than highsec" just isn't in the cards, and I doubt the people lobbying for nullsec industry to be better at basic production than highsec industry would really be happy with the results if they got what they are asking for.

That's your answer ?

Its the only one that makes sense. Why else would people want to stop industrialist from gaining more reward for greater risks?

Because in the case of industry it makes absolutely NO sense that nullsec would have more industry focus then empire for the simple reasons i stated above.It's not because you take more risk that everything should be better/higher.


Hey i got an idea let's make a raven build in nullsec 30% stronger/better then one build in empire because hey risk risk risk .....



I'm known for being anti-goon , blueballblob and all that but i try to be rational in arguements like this.Keeping both null/high in mind but it's hard seeig as both sides mostly only look out for their own interests.

I somewhat agree with you, Malcanis. Industry in null sec, while certainly more risky in some ways than high sec, it is infinitely more safe while under the umbrella of security of the major power blocks. And that is where I cease to agree with you on just about any other point of your entire platform.

Buffing null industry WILL NOT encourage null sec growth. There WILL NOT be indy corps lining up to move out to null. Buffing null industry will only further line the pockets of those at the top of the major alliances and nothing more. I can't decide if this crusade you're on makes you a hopeless optimist or an egregious liar.

I am replying to Flakeys not you, what for you is "trolling" may mean something else for him.




"Without any evidence or analysis of why that might me"?

Let's see, it's "null sec" aka "lawless sec".
It's a warzone exactly like in Somalia and other similar zones, where a "war lord" and his entourage hold a piece of domain. Like in Somalia they hire / convince a number of "grunts" to be with / work for them and hold such territory.
Like in Somalia, any time of the night or day another war lord may decide to mount an attack to take that territory.
In other war places (not Somalia), during an attrition or full scale war, one of the involved factions planted structures to symbolically or practically begin claiming a stake on the contested territory.
If the attack succeeds the new lord comes in and takes their head quarter, possibly kills how many losing guys he feels fit and takes their stuff. Once finished he starts putting up defenses on his new territory expansion.

Now, let YOU tell me sov nullsec is nothing like this if you can.

Sure, some coalitions want null sec to become a sort of "Sim City" and this might even be commendable and good.
But it's not born like this and when I was there in all of my "BIG DUMBO GANKERness" I knew that every day could be the last day.
Plus for my alts - who unlike this character were in a lesser alliance - it was even worse. They had to live at a POS and every single day all I could do was to hope not to get such POS reinforced and eventually lose everything.




Doh, another snotty elite pretending to evangelize the unwashed masses.

Your evolution into just another CFC talking mouth is now complete. Grats .

Hey, how's relevant to talk about Sobaseki to fabricate an argument off a completely different region, eh?
Guess what, if Sobaseki got their stuff it's because somebody planned it to be so.

If some don't like the status quo, they should ask CCP to change is without crapping all over low sec, NPC null and hi sec.
As for 5% tax, that's largely insufficient.

But as both you and Malcanis fail to see yet Flakeys (a guy who can eath both of you while making the billions) got the concept in 2 lines.

There's no high tier activities without a framework of mechanics that currently don't exist and that would provide staying pre-conditions to those activities to happen.

With 5% tax or even 30% nobody will budge.

Sobaseki is not overpowered because it got slots, it's overpowered because it got hi sec.
As long as "hi sec" exists you won't get a major industry running outside of it.

A little demo? Go low sec, where there are thousands of unused slots, there are even some decent moons yet industry simply does not exist on any relevant scale.

So, slots are not the answer, they are just a little bit in a larger vision that the "nerf hi sec nao and add slots to null" crowd don't bring on the table.