These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why nerf high sec?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#401 - 2013-07-23 09:17:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
I have not been keeping tabs on incursions, last one I did was 4 months ago, when did they adjust them and what did they do?

Ice is a pain in some senses, but there are some benefits that may occur, I don't think that the target of that change was nerf HS, more to do with isotope supply for vast Super/titan fleets, IMO.

The removal of T3's was annoying as I went to do one the other day and had a WTF moment, since then I have not bothered, but that was to make it more difficult for people farming other peoples work, lol

FW, glad you making ISK with this.

Actually I tend to make more belt ratting in 0.0, but its marginal, but the fun is that I have people trying to kill me which makes it less of a grind. But that is mainly because I can only stand recuing the dramsel so many times before I start getting suicidal...

I reallty do not understand the need for people to attack other players game play based on some preceived notion of balance in terms of risk reward. One RL example, expensive plant is placed in secure countries, but in Eve refining rates for example which come from better plant are deemed as incorrect in being in HS due to this risk/reward balance attitude, which makes little sense.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#402 - 2013-07-23 09:35:23 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


I reallty do not understand the need for people to attack other players game play based on some preceived notion of balance in terms of risk reward. One RL example, expensive plant is placed in secure countries, but in Eve refining rates for example which come from better plant are deemed as incorrect in being in HS due to this risk/reward balance attitude, which makes little sense.


The point is to reward people for taking greater risks.

If highsec offers more or less the same (or better in the case of incursions) then whats the point of taking that extra risk?
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#403 - 2013-07-23 10:04:56 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


I reallty do not understand the need for people to attack other players game play based on some preceived notion of balance in terms of risk reward. One RL example, expensive plant is placed in secure countries, but in Eve refining rates for example which come from better plant are deemed as incorrect in being in HS due to this risk/reward balance attitude, which makes little sense.


The point is to reward people for taking greater risks.

If highsec offers more or less the same (or better in the case of incursions) then whats the point of taking that extra risk?



And why should there be this point in a sandbox, or someone try to impose their sandbox on others?

Take belt ratting, I do this in NPC 0.0, I recently did it for a month and a half in Stain, I did it because it was fun to do this while -DD- in BLOPS were trying to stop me, the point of taking that extra risk was for fun, now there are many players that just keep on grinding with no risk doing boring stuff and that is lazyness, but who am I to tell them that is wrong, I work on the basis of suggesting not forcing, and all this nerf high sec is misguided forcing.

There is a ceiling to the development of alliances and corps, which is join a long standing corp in a longstanding 0.0 alliance or forget about getting into 0.0, well there is always renting but that is a mugs game. So looking at this from the position of the small/medium sized alliance they need to develop the ISK and their ability to project force by earning the ISK to be able to break in. So if you remove the capacity to make serious ISK in Highsec you make 0.0 even more stagnent. To me its no coincidence that people in 0.0 are the most vocal in nerfing HS, because they want fresh bllod to be cannon fodder and see it through their lense of making 0.0 more dynamic by forcing people into 0.0. It will not work.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#404 - 2013-07-23 10:11:46 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
And why should there be this point in a sandbox, or someone try to impose their sandbox on others?
It should be like that because it's a sandbox: because the game provides the tools so people can go and use them. If it turns out one corner of the sandbox is actually concrete, the solution is not to to write off that part and shrink the sandbox but to make the tools harder and sharper to deal with the problem.

And imposing someone's sandbox on others is exactly the problem: the tools are not properly matched, which imposes the highsec gameplay on people who would much rather prefer to stay out of that part of space, but who are kept from doing so by fundamental design flaws.

And no, “but they can do it if they choose to” is not a retort to that. Just because you can choose to suckle a shotgun in a sandbox doesn't mean that it's conducive to good sandbox play… in fact, most would argue that shotguns have no place among sand castles.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#405 - 2013-07-23 10:15:38 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Dracvlad wrote:


And why should there be this point in a sandbox, or someone try to impose their sandbox on others?



So why is it ok to nerf null but not ok to do the same to high?
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#406 - 2013-07-23 10:36:40 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
And why should there be this point in a sandbox, or someone try to impose their sandbox on others?
It should be like that because it's a sandbox: because the game provides the tools so people can go and use them. If it turns out one corner of the sandbox is actually concrete, the solution is not to to write off that part and shrink the sandbox but to make the tools harder and sharper to deal with the problem.

And imposing someone's sandbox on others is exactly the problem: the tools are not properly matched, which imposes the highsec gameplay on people who would much rather prefer to stay out of that part of space, but who are kept from doing so by fundamental design flaws.

And no, “but they can do it if they choose to” is not a retort to that. Just because you can choose to suckle a shotgun in a sandbox doesn't mean that it's conducive to good sandbox play… in fact, most would argue that shotguns have no place among sand castles.


I am intrigued, how is HS imposing their gameplay on people who prefer to stay out of that space, if most people in HS are anti-social loners and doing their own thing, is it because they exist that they create a foaming mass of upset for people who think they should be part of the 0.0 herd.

Take 0.0 industry, I think the refining rates of stations should be improved further, though I noted that a lot of people have not bothered to upgrade their stations, mainly due to cost and whether they will keep ownership and of course that the upgrade is deemed to be not worth it. Is that the fault of HS, no, but people call for nerfing HS refining and manufacturing because of it, which is so meh!

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#407 - 2013-07-23 10:41:27 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
And why should there be this point in a sandbox, or someone try to impose their sandbox on others?
It should be like that because it's a sandbox: because the game provides the tools so people can go and use them. If it turns out one corner of the sandbox is actually concrete, the solution is not to to write off that part and shrink the sandbox but to make the tools harder and sharper to deal with the problem.

And imposing someone's sandbox on others is exactly the problem: the tools are not properly matched, which imposes the highsec gameplay on people who would much rather prefer to stay out of that part of space, but who are kept from doing so by fundamental design flaws.

And no, “but they can do it if they choose to” is not a retort to that. Just because you can choose to suckle a shotgun in a sandbox doesn't mean that it's conducive to good sandbox play… in fact, most would argue that shotguns have no place among sand castles.

Are you saying that a reward for going out there is required because its not fun? If highsec hard better rewards nobody would go to null because its not fun?

Shouldnt the solution be to make it fun then? And are there not already great rewards such as all the null only content?

Im not sure I can agree with the If they dont want to leave highsec we shall starve them out philosophy. Carrots > Sticks hen it comes to voluntary customers.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#408 - 2013-07-23 10:43:29 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


And why should there be this point in a sandbox, or someone try to impose their sandbox on others?



So why is it ok the nerf null but not ok to do the same to high?


Its because CCP were stupid on that nerf, CCP wanted to create conflict based on better systems, but it failed as people could not compete in taking those systems found their income was nerfed to such a degree that they could never build up enough to take one of those systems. Many people think that the conflict drivers were already there, basically large bored alliances looking for people to crush and those people had a reason to be in 0.0 as they could make ISK, but CCP ruined it, but that is no reason to ruin HS because of that! But I have to say the point that this nerf to the worse systems and their upgrades being a mistake is well understood by me.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#409 - 2013-07-23 10:45:17 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
And why should there be this point in a sandbox, or someone try to impose their sandbox on others?
It should be like that because it's a sandbox: because the game provides the tools so people can go and use them. If it turns out one corner of the sandbox is actually concrete, the solution is not to to write off that part and shrink the sandbox but to make the tools harder and sharper to deal with the problem.

And imposing someone's sandbox on others is exactly the problem: the tools are not properly matched, which imposes the highsec gameplay on people who would much rather prefer to stay out of that part of space, but who are kept from doing so by fundamental design flaws.

And no, “but they can do it if they choose to” is not a retort to that. Just because you can choose to suckle a shotgun in a sandbox doesn't mean that it's conducive to good sandbox play… in fact, most would argue that shotguns have no place among sand castles.

Are you saying that a reward for going out there is required because its not fun? If highsec hard better rewards nobody would go to null because its not fun?

Shouldnt the solution be to make it fun then? And are there not already great rewards such as all the null only content?

Im not sure I can agree with the If they dont want to leave highsec we shall starve them out philosophy. Carrots > Sticks hen it comes to voluntary customers.


You understand it, good post.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#410 - 2013-07-23 10:50:39 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


And why should there be this point in a sandbox, or someone try to impose their sandbox on others?



So why is it ok the nerf null but not ok to do the same to high?


Its because CCP were stupid on that nerf, CCP wanted to create conflict based on better systems, but it failed as people could not compete in taking those systems found their income was nerfed to such a degree that they could never build up enough to take one of those systems. Many people think that the conflict drivers were already there, basically large bored alliances looking for people to crush and those people had a reason to be in 0.0 as they could make ISK, but CCP ruined it, but that is no reason to ruin HS because of that! But I have to say the point that this nerf to the worse systems and their upgrades being a mistake is well understood by me.


Not all of the nerfs were about driving conflict. The last anom nerf for example for a stright up nerf because we were making too much isk.

So, if we get our income nerfed because it is too high why not high sec to keep it all balanced?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#411 - 2013-07-23 10:54:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Dracvlad wrote:
I am intrigued, how is HS imposing their gameplay on people who prefer to stay out of that space
By being so much better than the alternatives that it is akin to suckling the aforementioned shotgun not to go there.

Quote:
Take 0.0 industry, I think the refining rates of stations should be improved further, though I noted that a lot of people have not bothered to upgrade their stations, mainly due to cost and whether they will keep ownership and of course that the upgrade is deemed to be not worth it. Is that the fault of HS?
Yes. Largely because highsec provides the baseline against which everything else is compared. That baseline is currently defined as “free, infinite, effortless, inherently secure and undisputable”. It doesn't matter how good null industry becomes (short of introducing legal duping) — as long as highsec industry exists in its current state, null will be awful in comparison. This is indeed the fault of (and a fault in) highsec. That's why highsec has to be nerfed: to provide a more sensible benchmark and have built-in margin of “badness” where other parts of space can be much better.

Infinity Ziona wrote:
Are you saying that a reward for going out there is required because its not fun?
No. I'm saying that a reward is not going to cut it because there is no competing against free and infinite. I'm saying that it's stupid that you get better stuff for free. There is no carrot out there, only a a stick never-ending cat o' nine tails driving you in the other direction.

Quote:
Im not sure I can agree with the If they dont want to leave highsec we shall starve them out philosophy.
That's because you've completely misunderstood the philosophy. It's not about starving people out — it's about bringing them back in. It has nothing to do with making people leave highsec, but about making them stay in null.

Dracvlad wrote:
You understand it, good post.
No, he really doesn't.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#412 - 2013-07-23 10:54:33 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


You understand it, good post.


Lets not kid ourselves here, when incursion income got nerfed all of the people who insisted the community was the main pull abandoned said community for the FW gravy train the day the nerf hit.
Iala Andromeda
ClawedOMICRON
#413 - 2013-07-23 10:54:37 UTC
Xen Solarus wrote:
Basicly the supposed "L33t PvPers" turned lowsec into a wasteland, and have moved to highsec to find their steady supply of targets that don't shoot back. They spout their highsec hating rhetoric as justification for this. You can pretty much insert any opinion here, but it boils down to them forcing their own views on how the game should be played. Highsec carebears, industrials, AFK-miners, and anyone else that doesn't fit into their narrow view, are simply playing the game wrong.

Why hunt for targets in areas of space where they could potentially shoot back, when there is an entire region full of defenceless players that can't / won't / don't want to fight back?

EvE is a great game for exactly the reason that it allows people of different backgrounds and interests to play for a whole host of different reasons. So, don't listen to the haters, cause haters gonna hate. You go right ahead and play the game for whatever reason that gives you enjoyment, and protect yourself against cowardly gankers at all times.


this!
And more to the point still, if those guys were free to run rampant in high sec without consequences, CCP would very quickly start losing a lot of accounts from all the people who hang out there because they have some level of safety there against just such.

Tried Eve years ago, when there was rampant gate camping around the newbie zones. You couldn't even enter 0.8 space to complete the tutorial missions without being blown out of the sky in seconds by some kid in a throwaway destroyer who had buddies nearby to recover his and your wreck (if Concord got them at all before they warped out that is).
I, and a lot of others, got so put off by that we quit the trial after a day or less. Took me years to try again, I know many others who'll never be back.

Each of those people are $15 a month AT LEAST in lost revenue to CCP, and all that to make a few kids happy who likely get their plesk in game by selling the loot they get from the targets they gank, which would only become more profitable if they can go after cargo haulers and mining barges in high sec space without consequences.

Even as is has something for everyone, there's more than enough room for all kinds of gameplay and that's what makes it great. AND allows for the relatively low prices those same gankers can get when they need to buy new stuff after they get blown up.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#414 - 2013-07-23 11:23:42 UTC
Tippia wrote:
By being so much better than the alternatives that it is akin to suckling the aforementioned shotgun not to go there.


I really do not think its better, missions, boring, incursions boring, mining boring, its a means to an end, 0.0 is more fun.

Tippia wrote:
Yes. Largely because highsec provides the baseline against which everything else is compared. That baseline is currently defined as “free, infinite, effortless, inherently secure and undisputable”. It doesn't matter how good null industry becomes (short of introducing legal duping) — as long as highsec industry exists in its current state, null will be awful in comparison. This is indeed the fault of (and a fault in) highsec. That's why highsec has to be nerfed: to provide a more sensible benchmark and have built-in margin of “badness” where other parts of space can be much better.


It should be possible for someone to upgrade their station to get perfect refining and a ton of manufacturing/copying/research slots, 0.0 has high ends there. 0.0 is where you get the T2 salvage, if people could upgrade their station at a lower cost and to a competitive level of perfect refining then that would perhaps create the change. I see the need to improve 0.0, but no need to nerf HS.

Tippia wrote:
No. I'm saying that a reward is not going to cut it because there is no competing against free and infinite. I'm saying that it's stupid that you get better stuff for free. There is no carrot out there, only a a stick never-ending cat o' nine tails driving you in the other direction.


Having been in 0.0 and come across truly dreadful leaders of alliances, that is often a reason why people don't go to 0.0, all I see in 0.0 is unattractive gameplay based on game inbalances that make it too hard to compete on my terms, so I chose at times not to do it.

Tippia wrote:
That's because you've completely misunderstood the philosophy. It's not about starving people out — it's about bringing them back in. It has nothing to do with making people leave highsec, but about making them stay in null.


I think this was an excellent point, and you are correct, many 0.0 people want to push people like me who have been in 0.0 but left it, back into 0.0, but many of us want to go to 0.0 on our own terms and just hitting us with a stick will not work.

Anyway I have stuff to do so will miss out the next few hours on this debate.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#415 - 2013-07-23 11:40:28 UTC
Iala Andromeda wrote:
completely misses the point.


Do you want to know why lowsec is a wasteland? Because the alternative to it are far, far too attractive in any kind of objective comparison.

Not "because gankers".

And, though I might slaver over the thought of making CONCORD tank-able once again, it's not going to happen, and I know it.

But when you state things like:

Quote:
Each of those people are $15 a month AT LEAST in lost revenue to CCP


So? The people who live in nullsec and lowsec are just supposed to pay CCP $15 a month themselves, for decidedly inferior parts of space? You just basically stated that because highsec people pay for the game, that everyone else who also pays for the game, doesn't matter.

That's why you miss the point. This is about economics. Highsec is: A, too safe. And B, too lucrative. We want both toned down, in order to make it not a fool's choice to live elsewhere.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#416 - 2013-07-23 11:44:38 UTC
Iala Andromeda wrote:


Tried Eve years ago, when there was rampant gate camping around the newbie zones. You couldn't even enter 0.8 space to complete the tutorial missions without being blown out of the sky in seconds by some kid in a throwaway destroyer who had buddies nearby to recover his and your wreck (if Concord got them at all before they warped out that is).


Yea, this never happened.
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#417 - 2013-07-23 12:04:32 UTC
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/QEN/QEN_Q3-2010.pdf

best I can do for now baltec1. one of the QEN's - it is a significant shame these are no longer issued, I appreciated them and felt that many did too. Kept thinking it was somewhere in Nov 2011 I read it?! But I am unable to lay hand to it. There is an off-hand comment on page 18.

odd though, this risk vs reward mantra that's all the theme these days. when hi-sec mining earned a pittance, no one said anything about risk vs reward. miners got told to suck it up, or go do missions instead. tell you what, if you want to nerf high sec mining, do more mining in null. Null has now received the re-distribution of minerals that it asked for. take control of player driven content and reduce the reliance of hi-sec minerals. this will reduce the reward of hi-sec. why is the intervention of CCP needed when players already possess the act for themselves?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#418 - 2013-07-23 12:09:41 UTC
Quote:
if you want to nerf high sec mining, do more mining in null. Null has now received the re-distribution of minerals that it asked for. take control of player driven content and reduce the reliance of hi-sec minerals. this will reduce the reward of hi-sec[quote]Null has now received the re-distribution of minerals that it asked for.


Sure, just give them the same industrial slots to actually use what they mine.

Oh wait, you mean that's yet another inexplicable imbalance in favor of highsec? Well, shucks.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#419 - 2013-07-23 12:22:06 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
if you want to nerf high sec mining, do more mining in null. Null has now received the re-distribution of minerals that it asked for. take control of player driven content and reduce the reliance of hi-sec minerals. this will reduce the reward of hi-sec[quote]Null has now received the re-distribution of minerals that it asked for.


Sure, just give them the same industrial slots to actually use what they mine.

Oh wait, you mean that's yet another inexplicable imbalance in favor of highsec? Well, shucks.


No you see 0.0 players don't have multiple outposts int he same sytem because they're too stupid and evil.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#420 - 2013-07-23 12:28:31 UTC
GetSirrus wrote:
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/QEN/QEN_Q3-2010.pdf

best I can do for now baltec1. one of the QEN's - it is a significant shame these are no longer issued, I appreciated them and felt that many did too. Kept thinking it was somewhere in Nov 2011 I read it?! But I am unable to lay hand to it. There is an off-hand comment on page 18.

odd though, this risk vs reward mantra that's all the theme these days. when hi-sec mining earned a pittance, no one said anything about risk vs reward. miners got told to suck it up, or go do missions instead. tell you what, if you want to nerf high sec mining, do more mining in null. Null has now received the re-distribution of minerals that it asked for. take control of player driven content and reduce the reliance of hi-sec minerals. this will reduce the reward of hi-sec. why is the intervention of CCP needed when players already possess the act for themselves?



That was before titans and supers got nerfed also before the last 2 or 3 anom nerfs.

Also this isnt about mining, its about ratting (killing rats) which is how most go about getting isk. We did campain long and hard for changes to make miners get more isk for their work and its been rather successfull. The biggest issues mining has right now in null is the lack of industry to sell to which is another issue regarding high secs imbalance.