These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

So what happens if we feel the CSM does not represent us?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#181 - 2011-09-07 21:52:45 UTC
Richard Hammond II wrote:
Zagam wrote:
Richard Hammond II wrote:
Zagam wrote:
Vin Hellsing, I'm interested to see why you think that hisec deserves more representation in the CSM. I have gone through some of your posts about the topic, and I'm kinda thin on why you think hisec deserves more representation - I just see a lot of comments about how nullsec deserves less. (your argument of hisec being more populated is on shaky ground at best, as few ppl who live in nullsec live ONLY in nullsec)


So your argument is highsec deserves no representation?

I made no argument at all. Just asked for more insight. Basically.. what unique issues does hisec have that aren't being properly addressed? (I see Vin posted after you - I'm getting to that post next)


Well IMO they shouldnt nerf it (as is planned) because the loudest catchphrase in that group seems to be risk vs reward.

So... make High sec more dangerous.
Dont remove most of the ice, the better drops, the agents etc etc etc and move em to 0.0, make high sec more risk prone.
I CAN see where the best drops should be in 0.0. Thats not an issue imo, my issue as to high sec is them making high sec less livable as far as making isks. I know CCP has never mentioned moving lvl 4 agents but you start mentioning agents and (even in the interview on EVE radio) the first thing out of the mouths of the ppl that want to nerf high sec is "there needs to be something done about lvl IVs"

My friend mines in high sec. Veldspar mostly. He's not even near a hub. His alt is a hauler. He has an Itty V. In about 25 mins or so, he can fill the itty v with ore. Refined, that ore makes 5 mil (away from a hub) or so. He says he makes more that way than even running lvl IVs. IF - note the qualifier IF - IF lvl IVs got moved, would all Veldspar be next? When would it end?


I flatly don't believe that a single miner with a hauler alt can make more mining Veldspar than it is possible to make doing level 4 missions. I'd be prepared to believe that his missioning skills and techniques are such that - somehow - he manages to make less doing level 4s than from mining veld, but that's on a par with saying that a 10 year old Toyota truck is faster than a Bugatti Veyron if you make the Bugatti pull a 3.5 ton trailer.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Vin Hellsing
#182 - 2011-09-07 21:53:32 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


They just have to want it enough to bother to commiting a few days to it, whereas at the moment they can turn up, vaporise you and still be home in time for tea.


And this is precisely what we need to have happen - make it so that holding sov will scale badly for large tracts of territory. Logistics and POS management, etc would have to scale badly the more you have to deal with them. This is actually something that's in discussion at CCP regarding sov rebalancing. Basically...

Small tracts of territory = easy to manage and hold.

Large tracts of territory = extremely time consuming, energy-inefficient and a massive isk sink.

This would naturally lead to more coalitions of smaller alliances, instead of mega-alliances and mega-coalitions. Personally I prefer the idea of coalitions of smaller alliance - a small home carved out for myself would be fantastic.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#183 - 2011-09-07 22:06:10 UTC
Vin Hellsing wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


They just have to want it enough to bother to commiting a few days to it, whereas at the moment they can turn up, vaporise you and still be home in time for tea.


And this is precisely what we need to have happen - make it so that holding sov will scale badly for large tracts of territory. Logistics and POS management, etc would have to scale badly the more you have to deal with them. This is actually something that's in discussion at CCP regarding sov rebalancing. Basically...

Small tracts of territory = easy to manage and hold.

Large tracts of territory = extremely time consuming, energy-inefficient and a massive isk sink.

This would naturally lead to more coalitions of smaller alliances, instead of mega-alliances and mega-coalitions. Personally I prefer the idea of coalitions of smaller alliance - a small home carved out for myself would be fantastic.


I'd prefer it to, but as I said, there's a reason that (for instance) Europe isn't a patchwork of picturesque and quaint city-states any longer.

Even if CCP forcibly broke up every alliance with more than 500 members, I can 100% promise you that within 12 months the influence map would look pretty much like it does now, for good reasons:

Numbers work.
Co-ordination works
Experience works

Your small corp isn't unable to claim sov merely because large powerblocs exist. The other reason is that 0.0 is populated by people who have been fighting sov wars for years, and they know what the hell they're doing. Do you? They understand sov mechanics. Do you? They have experienced players to join their fleets. Do you? They know how to assemble focused fleets. Do you? They have personal contacts with others who have similar advantages. Do you? They have the patience and fortitude to survive and prevail in a type of warfare that basically consists of not being the first to give up even after weeks and weeks of non-stop fighting. Do you?

If you answered no to any of those questions, then you wont be holding sov for long no matter what CCP does to 0.0.

That last question is perhaps the most important. In the end, territorial war is about trying to break the will of the other side to fight. That means doing everything you can think of to stop them wanting to fight whilst enduring them doing the same to you. Does your corp have a good number of people who are willing to keep logging in day after day, join fleet, bring the right ships and keep going to fight under those conditions?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Kengutsi Akira
Doomheim
#184 - 2011-09-07 22:06:21 UTC
Oh by the way, I did send a message to the CSM and to my surprise we're talking. Im actually getting back and forth messages with these Trebor an White Tree at least so far.

"Is it fair that CCP can get away with..." :: checks ownership on the box ::

Yes
Tethys Atreides
The Audacity of Huge
#185 - 2011-09-07 22:08:27 UTC
You see, I was hoping to get more of this:

Two step wrote:
Tethys Atreides wrote:
Fair enough. However, I would expect, since you are privey to information we are not, you all to improve the game at large, even at the expense of your "constituents", rather than mindlessly following the party line. I'd like to think that I am voting for a thinking person rather than a static platform.


And we all do this. EVE is a big enough world that one person cannot know every area, and this is why it is good to have folks on the CSM who know many different areas of the game. Even the "nullsec-only" candidates have experience in other areas of the game (Mittens is very proud of his level 3 mission running Caracal, for example).


And less of this:

The Mittani wrote:


You're welcome to buy into HURRR GOONS WANT TO DESTROY EVE conspiracy theories. No one's stopping you from looking like an idiot, or tossing occam's razor into the dustbin.




Which has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what I wrote, and is confrontational simply for the sake of being so.
Vin Hellsing
#186 - 2011-09-07 22:08:29 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Vin Hellsing wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


They just have to want it enough to bother to commiting a few days to it, whereas at the moment they can turn up, vaporise you and still be home in time for tea.


And this is precisely what we need to have happen - make it so that holding sov will scale badly for large tracts of territory. Logistics and POS management, etc would have to scale badly the more you have to deal with them. This is actually something that's in discussion at CCP regarding sov rebalancing. Basically...

Small tracts of territory = easy to manage and hold.

Large tracts of territory = extremely time consuming, energy-inefficient and a massive isk sink.

This would naturally lead to more coalitions of smaller alliances, instead of mega-alliances and mega-coalitions. Personally I prefer the idea of coalitions of smaller alliance - a small home carved out for myself would be fantastic.


I'd prefer it to, but as I said, there's a reason that (for instance) Europe isn't a patchwork of picturesque and quaint city-states any longer.

Even if CCP forcibly broke up every alliance with more than 500 members, I can 100% promise you that within 12 months the influence map would look pretty much like it does now, for good reasons:

Numbers work.
Co-ordination works
Experience works

Your small corp isn't unable to claim sov merely because large powerblocs exist. The other reason is that 0.0 is populated by people who have been fighting sov wars for years, and they know what the hell they're doing. Do you? They understand sov mechanics. Do you? They have experienced players to join their fleets. Do you? They know how to assemble focused fleets. Do you? They have personal contacts with others who have similar advantages. Do you? They have the patience and fortitude to survive and prevail in a type of warfare that basically consists of not being the first to give up even after weeks and weeks of non-stop fighting. Do you?

If you answered no to any of those questions, then you wont be holding sov for long no matter what CCP does to 0.0.

That last question is perhaps the most important. In the end, territorial war is about trying to break the will of the other side to fight. That means doing everything you can think of to stop them wanting to fight whilst enduring them doing the same to you. Does your corp have a good number of people who are willing to keep logging in day after day, join fleet, bring the right ships and keep going to fight under those conditions?


You've got a bloody point, man. :P Maybe I should start thinking about joining a nullsec corp to get back into the nullsec game, but I-RED is an RP corp and that matches up to some of my preferences in EVE. You don't see large alliances with a dedicated RP background very often - I'd considered Morsus Mihi, but their recent drubbing made me think twice.
Tarikla
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#187 - 2011-09-07 22:08:46 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
I hate to introduce facts into the argument, but just in case anyone fancies some, here is what CSM6 has actually been doing:

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/CSM_6_Activities_Summary


Reading this list from a High-sec mission runner point of view :

April 2011 :

-"Project A"
-Null sec
-Null sec
-Null sec
-MOAR Null Sec

May 2011 :

-"Project A"
-Null sec
-Null sec
-Null sec
-MOAR Null Sec

June 2011 :

-"Project A"
-Null sec
-Null sec
-Rage over NeX , Incarna and CCP failed communication

July 2011 :

-"Project A"
-Null sec
-Null sec
-NeX
-Null sec
-MOAR Null Sec

August 2011 :

-"Project A"
-Null sec
-Null sec
-Null sec
-MOAR Null Sec

September 2011 :

-"Project A"
-Null sec
-Null sec
-Null sec
-MOAR Null Sec

Really . Having only ONE High-sec/Low-sec/WH's representative is nowhere near to be enough where the majority of the CSM is from 0.0 (and thus can say "screw everything other than 0.0" and get it passed by the CSM as a whole) .

You know , if you look at the Eve population , we should get 1/4 0.0 , 1/2 HS (both high-sec missions runners , industrials , ect ect ect) and thus 1/8 low sec and 1/8 Wh's . You can't ignore that without all the HS 'dwellers" as you name them :

- Faction/DS loot , which 90 % is from 0.0 would really sell less (not talking about officier ones)
- Basically , every price would go crazy high

And THIS would happen , even if you would successfully move all Empire players to 0.0 (which is not gonna happen) , simply because 0.0 can't support THAT many players and eventually no one could mine/manufacture properly with all the roams around even if ressources were in enough supply.

I'm really thinking about a real coalition of HS players to get more representatives in the CSM7 . Not to "Balance" things , no . To get NEW content and note being forced into 0.0 .
Vin Hellsing
#188 - 2011-09-07 22:14:29 UTC
Tarikla wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
I hate to introduce facts into the argument, but just in case anyone fancies some, here is what CSM6 has actually been doing:

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/CSM_6_Activities_Summary


Reading this list from a High-sec mission runner point of view :

April 2011 :

-"Project A"
-Null sec
-Null sec
-Null sec
-MOAR Null Sec

May 2011 :

-"Project A"
-Null sec
-Null sec
-Null sec
-MOAR Null Sec

June 2011 :

-"Project A"
-Null sec
-Null sec
-Rage over NeX , Incarna and CCP failed communication

July 2011 :

-"Project A"
-Null sec
-Null sec
-NeX
-Null sec
-MOAR Null Sec

August 2011 :

-"Project A"
-Null sec
-Null sec
-Null sec
-MOAR Null Sec

September 2011 :

-"Project A"
-Null sec
-Null sec
-Null sec
-MOAR Null Sec

Really . Having only ONE High-sec/Low-sec/WH's representative is nowhere near to be enough where the majority of the CSM is from 0.0 (and thus can say "screw everything other than 0.0" and get it passed by the CSM as a whole) .

You know , if you look at the Eve population , we should get 1/4 0.0 , 1/2 HS (both high-sec missions runners , industrials , ect ect ect) and thus 1/8 low sec and 1/8 Wh's . You can't ignore that without all the HS 'dwellers" as you name them :

- Faction/DS loot , which 90 % is from 0.0 would really sell less (not talking about officier ones)
- Basically , every price would go crazy high

And THIS would happen , even if you would successfully move all Empire players to 0.0 (which is not gonna happen) , simply because 0.0 can't support THAT many players and eventually no one could mine/manufacture properly with all the roams around even if ressources were in enough supply.

I'm really thinking about a real coalition of HS players to get more representatives in the CSM7 . Not to "Balance" things , no . To get NEW content and note being forced into 0.0 .


Tarikla, get in touch with me ingame. Convo me, evemail me, whatever. I prefer a face to face discussion. I can get you in the know on something I'm getting started that should address the last paragraph you mentioned.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#189 - 2011-09-07 22:14:44 UTC
Tarikla wrote:


I'm really thinking about a real coalition of HS players to get more representatives in the CSM7 . Not to "Balance" things , no . To get NEW content and note being forced into 0.0 .


Cool, go ahead and do that. The results should be fascinating to watch.

Incidentally, which proposal was about forcing people into 0.0? Are the GMs going to teleport people into 0.0? Will having more than 10M SP be a CONCORDable offence? I ask because I keep seeing this talk about people being forced into 0.0, but I can't for the life of me find an actual proposal, either by the CSM, CCP or even ordinary players creating proposals in the Assembly Hall that this be done.

Thanks in advance,

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Kengutsi Akira
Doomheim
#190 - 2011-09-07 22:15:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Kengutsi Akira
Malcanis wrote:


I flatly don't believe that a single miner with a hauler alt can make more mining Veldspar than it is possible to make doing level 4 missions. I'd be prepared to believe that his missioning skills and techniques are such that - somehow - he manages to make less doing level 4s than from mining veld, but that's on a par with saying that a 10 year old Toyota truck is faster than a Bugatti Veyron if you make the Bugatti pull a 3.5 ton trailer.


k... I make 13 mil EVERY TIME I dump the Ity V

I run lvl IVs, every 5 missions I get a mission that pays me 2 million. The missions in between that I get less.
Which makes more money?

Maybe I should quantify that with FOR ME

"Is it fair that CCP can get away with..." :: checks ownership on the box ::

Yes
Richard Hammond II
Doomheim
#191 - 2011-09-07 22:18:50 UTC
Tethys Atreides wrote:
You see, I was hoping to get more of this:

Two step wrote:
Tethys Atreides wrote:
Fair enough. However, I would expect, since you are privey to information we are not, you all to improve the game at large, even at the expense of your "constituents", rather than mindlessly following the party line. I'd like to think that I am voting for a thinking person rather than a static platform.


And we all do this. EVE is a big enough world that one person cannot know every area, and this is why it is good to have folks on the CSM who know many different areas of the game. Even the "nullsec-only" candidates have experience in other areas of the game (Mittens is very proud of his level 3 mission running Caracal, for example).


And less of this:

The Mittani wrote:


You're welcome to buy into HURRR GOONS WANT TO DESTROY EVE conspiracy theories. No one's stopping you from looking like an idiot, or tossing occam's razor into the dustbin.




Which has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what I wrote, and is confrontational simply for the sake of being so.


Pay attention CSM ppl, the top helps your cause. The Troll DOESNT

Goons; infiltration at its best - first bob... now ccp itself. They dont realize you guys dot take this as "just a game". Bring it down guys, we're rooting for you.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#192 - 2011-09-07 22:20:45 UTC
Kengutsi Akira wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


I flatly don't believe that a single miner with a hauler alt can make more mining Veldspar than it is possible to make doing level 4 missions. I'd be prepared to believe that his missioning skills and techniques are such that - somehow - he manages to make less doing level 4s than from mining veld, but that's on a par with saying that a 10 year old Toyota truck is faster than a Bugatti Veyron if you make the Bugatti pull a 3.5 ton trailer.


k... I make 13 mil EVERY TIME I dump the Ity V

I run lvl IVs, every 5 missions I get a mission that pays me 2 million. The missions in between that I get less.
Which makes more money?


How often do you "dump" the Ity V? Are you doing the missions fast enough to get a completion bonus (this should be another 2 mill or so)? Are you not shooting rats in your missions? Rats with bounties?

And finally, since you seem to be unaware of this, I have some extremely good news for you. Those "LP" that the agent awards you are actually very valuable. Open the loyalty store (you will need to dock in the station to do this) and look at your options for trading them in. You should be easily able to get an equivalent value of around 1000 ISK for each LP, or more if you make a little effort.

In total, you should expect to make 30-40 mill ISK per hour with little difficulty, just blitzing.

What ISK/hr do you get from the Veldspar?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Vin Hellsing
#193 - 2011-09-07 22:21:38 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Tarikla wrote:


I'm really thinking about a real coalition of HS players to get more representatives in the CSM7 . Not to "Balance" things , no . To get NEW content and note being forced into 0.0 .


Cool, go ahead and do that. The results should be fascinating to watch.

Incidentally, which proposal was about forcing people into 0.0? Are the GMs going to teleport people into 0.0? Will having more than 10M SP be a CONCORDable offence? I ask because I keep seeing this talk about people being forced into 0.0, but I can't for the life of me find an actual proposal, either by the CSM, CCP or even ordinary players creating proposals in the Assembly Hall that this be done.

Thanks in advance,


It's called social engineering. You take away something to force people to move elsewhere, or something to that effect.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#194 - 2011-09-07 22:23:31 UTC
Vin Hellsing wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Tarikla wrote:


I'm really thinking about a real coalition of HS players to get more representatives in the CSM7 . Not to "Balance" things , no . To get NEW content and note being forced into 0.0 .


Cool, go ahead and do that. The results should be fascinating to watch.

Incidentally, which proposal was about forcing people into 0.0? Are the GMs going to teleport people into 0.0? Will having more than 10M SP be a CONCORDable offence? I ask because I keep seeing this talk about people being forced into 0.0, but I can't for the life of me find an actual proposal, either by the CSM, CCP or even ordinary players creating proposals in the Assembly Hall that this be done.

Thanks in advance,


It's called social engineering. You take away something to force people to move elsewhere, or something to that effect.


So when you say "force", you actually mean "encourage"?

Alternatively, by your way of thinking, CCP are currently "forcing" people into hi-sec.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Vin Hellsing
#195 - 2011-09-07 22:24:45 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Vin Hellsing wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Tarikla wrote:


I'm really thinking about a real coalition of HS players to get more representatives in the CSM7 . Not to "Balance" things , no . To get NEW content and note being forced into 0.0 .


Cool, go ahead and do that. The results should be fascinating to watch.

Incidentally, which proposal was about forcing people into 0.0? Are the GMs going to teleport people into 0.0? Will having more than 10M SP be a CONCORDable offence? I ask because I keep seeing this talk about people being forced into 0.0, but I can't for the life of me find an actual proposal, either by the CSM, CCP or even ordinary players creating proposals in the Assembly Hall that this be done.

Thanks in advance,


It's called social engineering. You take away something to force people to move elsewhere, or something to that effect.


So when you say "force", you actually mean "encourage"?

Alternatively, by your way of thinking, CCP are currently "forcing" people into hi-sec.


Heh. Well, to each their own. There are going to be issues with the idea of reducing resouces in Highsec for players to harvest (which is one of the lines of reasoning behind the matter).
Tarikla
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#196 - 2011-09-07 22:25:54 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


Incidentally, which proposal was about forcing people into 0.0? Are the GMs going to teleport people into 0.0? Will having more than 10M SP be a CONCORDable offence? I ask because I keep seeing this talk about people being forced into 0.0, but I can't for the life of me find an actual proposal, either by the CSM, CCP or even ordinary players creating proposals in the Assembly Hall that this be done.

Thanks in advance,


In the "already done" thingies :

- Removal of capital manufacturing in HS
- Removal of L5 in HS
- The Mission loot Nerf

In the "0.0 goal" thing :

- 0.0 for T2 prod (meaning removal of PI product for T2 in HS)
- Removal of some or all Ice in HS
- The whole "Move best agent" thingy , they already get on the path with the L5 , and we can only conclude sometime L4 will follow them
- The whole "there is not enough ISK in 0.0" , and the previous statements by CCP that they do not want to inject more and more ISK into the game , so it's toward a HS nerf more than other .

Oh , sure , No one will move my character in 0.0 for me . But when the HS will become Sahara , i will get two choice : move to 0.0 or quit . that's what i mean by "forcing" people into 0.0 .

@Vin Hellsing : Of Course , but not tonight , maybe tommorow or saturday ? :)
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#197 - 2011-09-07 22:27:57 UTC
Vin Hellsing wrote:


Heh. Well, to each their own.


This seems to be the apposite quote:

Through The Looking Glass wrote:

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

"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.
#198 - 2011-09-07 22:29:24 UTC
Tarikla wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


Incidentally, which proposal was about forcing people into 0.0? Are the GMs going to teleport people into 0.0? Will having more than 10M SP be a CONCORDable offence? I ask because I keep seeing this talk about people being forced into 0.0, but I can't for the life of me find an actual proposal, either by the CSM, CCP or even ordinary players creating proposals in the Assembly Hall that this be done.

Thanks in advance,


In the "already done" thingies :

- Removal of capital manufacturing in HS
- Removal of L5 in HS
- The Mission loot Nerf

In the "0.0 goal" thing :

- 0.0 for T2 prod (meaning removal of PI product for T2 in HS)
- Removal of some or all Ice in HS
- The whole "Move best agent" thingy , they already get on the path with the L5 , and we can only conclude sometime L4 will follow them
- The whole "there is not enough ISK in 0.0" , and the previous statements by CCP that they do not want to inject more and more ISK into the game , so it's toward a HS nerf more than other .

Oh , sure , No one will move my character in 0.0 for me . But when the HS will become Sahara , i will get two choice : move to 0.0 or quit . that's what i mean by "forcing" people into 0.0 .

@Vin Hellsing : Of Course , but not tonight , maybe tommorow or saturday ? :)


For some unaccountable reason, you forgot to mention the recent hi-sec mission buff where all agents were given an effective quality of +20.

I hope I'm not forcing inconvenient facts into your argument.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Vin Hellsing
#199 - 2011-09-07 22:31:20 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Tarikla wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


Incidentally, which proposal was about forcing people into 0.0? Are the GMs going to teleport people into 0.0? Will having more than 10M SP be a CONCORDable offence? I ask because I keep seeing this talk about people being forced into 0.0, but I can't for the life of me find an actual proposal, either by the CSM, CCP or even ordinary players creating proposals in the Assembly Hall that this be done.

Thanks in advance,


In the "already done" thingies :

- Removal of capital manufacturing in HS
- Removal of L5 in HS
- The Mission loot Nerf

In the "0.0 goal" thing :

- 0.0 for T2 prod (meaning removal of PI product for T2 in HS)
- Removal of some or all Ice in HS
- The whole "Move best agent" thingy , they already get on the path with the L5 , and we can only conclude sometime L4 will follow them
- The whole "there is not enough ISK in 0.0" , and the previous statements by CCP that they do not want to inject more and more ISK into the game , so it's toward a HS nerf more than other .

Oh , sure , No one will move my character in 0.0 for me . But when the HS will become Sahara , i will get two choice : move to 0.0 or quit . that's what i mean by "forcing" people into 0.0 .

@Vin Hellsing : Of Course , but not tonight , maybe tommorow or saturday ? :)


For some unaccountable reason, you forgot to mention the recent hi-sec mission buff where all agents were given an effective quality of +20.

I hope I'm not forcing inconvenient facts into your argument.


The effective quality is nice but I don't think it's enough to offset what's already been moved out of highsec.
Richard Hammond II
Doomheim
#200 - 2011-09-07 22:35:34 UTC
Tarikla wrote:


You know , if you look at the Eve population , we should get 1/4 0.0 , 1/2 HS (both high-sec missions runners , industrials , ect ect ect) and thus 1/8 low sec and 1/8 Wh's . You can't ignore that without all the HS 'dwellers" as you name them :


Finally, hell I BEEN asking for someone with a population distribution graph all along this argument. Can you post it?

Goons; infiltration at its best - first bob... now ccp itself. They dont realize you guys dot take this as "just a game". Bring it down guys, we're rooting for you.