These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Hi-sec profits need to be nerfed in order to expand player activity into low/null

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#101 - 2013-10-21 16:44:47 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
We'd at least understand if CCP sees it as an issue and if they have any plans to address it.


"CCP" is a slippery concept here. There are hundreds of people who work for CCP. Some of them most definitely see it as an issue.


It's a tough one, when people pay you to do what you don't want them to do despite all your efforts to lure them into doing what you want. Poor CCP Hardenthefuckup, he's the most misunderstood guy after CCP Backlash. Sad

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#102 - 2013-10-21 17:00:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Arduemont
Nerffing and buffing of space is a m00t idea.

Each area of space needs unique resources. That way the players decide which areas of space are most profitable through supply and demand. At the moment there is nothing you can get in lowsec that you can't get with almost complete safety out in Goonsec. Highsec has no unique resources (until the Ghost sites are added), Low sec has only FW loyalty points (nothing exciting), and nullsec has officer mods. WH space is in that sense one of the most unique areas of space, which is why people complain about it so little. Poor NPC null space literally has nothing that you can't get somewhere else. Nothing at all.

Give each area of space more unique resources and the players will move to those areas for those things. Simple as that. ISK, and minerals mean almost nothing because you can get them anywhere. High sec resources will be naturally cheaper and therefore less profitable because they are easier to get hold of. The most dangerous areas of space would naturally become the most profitable.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#103 - 2013-10-21 17:00:22 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
We'd at least understand if CCP sees it as an issue and if they have any plans to address it.


"CCP" is a slippery concept here. There are hundreds of people who work for CCP. Some of them most definitely see it as an issue.


The bad part is you probably can;t give us more details than that. Like how big is that "some". If high-sec income was truly seen as a problem, it would of been tackled by a temporary fix until they find a more elegant solution. Right now, nothing is done and to me, that means there is nothing to cahnge because it's how it seems it should be.


"Nothings being done because there isn't a problem and this is how its supposed to be," not even going to touch how terrible of an argument that is. You're forgetting that there could be gridlock, half wants to change it half does not so both halves are left at a point of indecision.


If there is indeed a gridlock, then debating it until the cows come home is not gonna change anything anyway and I can tell you the cows are very far from home. Both side dismiss the argument of the other because they see the game as needing to be played "thier" way. "We should not ahve to go to nigh sec to be efficient at makign ISK" and "We should not have to go to low/null to be efficient at amking ISK" is pretty much the same thing in the end and it's what most of those stupid thread end up in anyway.

If CCP is stuck in a gridlock like the forum is, you will have to live with the current way it is.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#104 - 2013-10-21 17:03:40 UTC
Arduemont wrote:
Poor sov space literally has nothing that you can't get somewhere else. Nothing at all.

- you can build capitals/supers
- you can set up outposts and deny enemy docking rights
- you can have your name on a system
- you can run regular anomalies and mining sites with upgrades

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#105 - 2013-10-21 17:06:20 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Arduemont wrote:
Poor sov space literally has nothing that you can't get somewhere else. Nothing at all.

- you can build capitals/supers
- you can set up outposts and deny enemy docking rights
- you can have your name on a system
- you can run regular anomalies and mining sites with upgrades


To be fair anoms are only our version of level 4 missions only not unlimited.
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#106 - 2013-10-21 17:06:57 UTC

I can't believe I have to say the things that are obvious




Why should CCP change anything at all?


Is it beyond player ability to think around the problems themselves?


EvE is about "if you can imagine it, you can do it"


So if High/Low/Null/W is too good/bad/indifferent


Do something


Other than sit here achieving


Nothing

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#107 - 2013-10-21 17:07:57 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:

The issue here is that the half that want to change it are mainly in 0.0 and seem to want to do it to force those in hisec into 0.0. Those in hisec don't want to go to 0.0 and cannot see why their ISK levels should be nerfed to force them to do something they won't do and ruins their enjoyment by making it harder to gain shiny stuff.


This argument has come up in every single thread Malcanis has just verbally sighed about. "You want highsec nerfed so you can force highsec people into other sec areas." People want to be able to live and thrive in their own areas that's the simple. Its only easy to do this in highsec because its rewarded so well for the risk that is there. I don't see officer/faction fit vindicators as a common site in lowsec, I don't see it in nullsec or wormholes either. The reason for that is its not rewarded enough for people do decide its a good idea to do that.

I'm going to make the claim that the average person has a hard time thriving in their own space outside of highsec so they make alts and sit them in highsec to enable their actions outside of highsec.

That's only the case because reward > > > risk in highsec.

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
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#108 - 2013-10-21 17:14:10 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

If there is indeed a gridlock, then debating it until the cows come home is not gonna change anything anyway and I can tell you the cows are very far from home. Both side dismiss the argument of the other because they see the game as needing to be played "thier" way. "We should not ahve to go to nigh sec to be efficient at makign ISK" and "We should not have to go to low/null to be efficient at amking ISK" is pretty much the same thing in the end and it's what most of those stupid thread end up in anyway.

If CCP is stuck in a gridlock like the forum is, you will have to live with the current way it is.


A defeatist outlook on it and another set horrible arguments from you. "Gridlock exists and nothing can change it so we should do nothing." The reason said gridlock exist is because at least half of the people aren't willing to be swayed by facts and data. Remove those people from the conversation then try having it again. Effective moderation would do wonders.

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
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#109 - 2013-10-21 17:17:34 UTC
La Nariz wrote:


That's only the case because reward > > > risk in highsec.


Of course is super skewed. The real problem that needs to be solved is to know if it's intended or not. What if the current risk:reward ratio was intended in low/null because of the toher stuff you can also do there and you can't in other place? Until we actaully have a clear answer from CCP (Like that really has a chance to happen...), we will never really know whats the deal with it and have to regress back to sligning poo at each other like monkeys. Every single point and possible outcome has already been debated to death by the player base. The dead horse is nothing more than a bloody mess on the ground now. Heck our sticks are shorter than they use to be from all that beating and yet, not a single word was spoken by CCP. Is beating out stick until they actaully are toothpick the way this should really keep going?

I demand CCP establish a monument in honor of that poor horse now.
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#110 - 2013-10-21 17:18:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Arduemont
March rabbit wrote:
Arduemont wrote:
Poor sov space literally has nothing that you can't get somewhere else. Nothing at all.

- you can build capitals/supers
- you can set up outposts and deny enemy docking rights
- you can have your name on a system
- you can run regular anomalies and mining sites with upgrades


Typo. I meant NPC null.

Corrected.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#111 - 2013-10-21 17:22:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Dracvlad wrote:


The issue here is that the half that want to change it are mainly in 0.0 and seem to want to do it to force those in hisec into 0.0. Those in hisec don't want to go to 0.0 and cannot see why their ISK levels should be nerfed to force them to do something they won't do and ruins their enjoyment by making it harder to gain shiny stuff.


Aaaaaaand paranoia again! "You just want to make me go to low/nullsec so you can gank me!"

No, they don't. That's just you protecting your golden goose. It's always the same trite and tired response when people tell you that highsec is raking in the cash at an inappropriate level.

So, there are two real possibilities here. Either people who like highsec will stay in highsec because they're cowards and won't go anywhere that doesn't have CONCORD.

Or, they will go because they will only go where the most money can be made, in which case we still need to nerf highsec because the very existence of those people in highsec is a damning condemnation of how much obscene amounts of money can be made there in almost total safety.

So, people who are in highsec now are there for one of two reasons: safety, or money. If they are there for safety, then they won't leave anyway. If they are there for money, that just goes to show that it's too lucrative.

"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.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#112 - 2013-10-21 17:30:32 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


The issue here is that the half that want to change it are mainly in 0.0 and seem to want to do it to force those in hisec into 0.0. Those in hisec don't want to go to 0.0 and cannot see why their ISK levels should be nerfed to force them to do something they won't do and ruins their enjoyment by making it harder to gain shiny stuff.


Aaaaaaand paranoia again! "You just want to make me go to low/nullsec so you can gank me!"

No, they don't. That's just you protecting your golden goose. It's always the same trite and tired response when people tell you that highsec is raking in the cash at an inappropriate level.

So, there are two real possibilities here. Either people who like highsec will stay in highsec because they're cowards and won't go anywhere that doesn't have CONCORD.

Or, they will go because they will only go where the most money can be made, in which case we still need to nerf highsec because the very existence of those people in highsec is a damning condemnation of how much obscene amounts of money can be made there in almost total safety.

So, people who are in highsec now are there for one of two reasons: safety, or money. If they are there for safety, then they won't leave anyway. If they are there for money, that just goes to show that it's too lucrative.


Since we know money can also be made in low/null with the difference really being that it is more dangerous, then the amount of money made in high sec should not really bother you because you would also be making money. The choice of living in dangerous sapce is one players make by themself. If you want non-consentual PVP to not cost you a ship, then you ahve to live in more risky place. CCP made sure that you can also make money in the PVP zones but your own choice mean you have to put more effort into it. Prove to me that the risk/reward ratio is more skewed than CCP intended and I will support your crusade because it will be then proven that the game is not balanced as it should be. Until you can do that, I will go with my own theory of "It's currently implemented the way CCP wants it".

It's not like nerfing the income of high-sec would be hard if they really wanted to nerf it.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#113 - 2013-10-21 17:41:28 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


The issue here is that the half that want to change it are mainly in 0.0 and seem to want to do it to force those in hisec into 0.0. Those in hisec don't want to go to 0.0 and cannot see why their ISK levels should be nerfed to force them to do something they won't do and ruins their enjoyment by making it harder to gain shiny stuff.


Aaaaaaand paranoia again! "You just want to make me go to low/nullsec so you can gank me!"

No, they don't. That's just you protecting your golden goose. It's always the same trite and tired response when people tell you that highsec is raking in the cash at an inappropriate level.

So, there are two real possibilities here. Either people who like highsec will stay in highsec because they're cowards and won't go anywhere that doesn't have CONCORD.

Or, they will go because they will only go where the most money can be made, in which case we still need to nerf highsec because the very existence of those people in highsec is a damning condemnation of how much obscene amounts of money can be made there in almost total safety.

So, people who are in highsec now are there for one of two reasons: safety, or money. If they are there for safety, then they won't leave anyway. If they are there for money, that just goes to show that it's too lucrative.


Since we know money can also be made in low/null with the difference really being that it is more dangerous, then the amount of money made in high sec should not really bother you because you would also be making money. The choice of living in dangerous sapce is one players make by themself. If you want non-consentual PVP to not cost you a ship, then you ahve to live in more risky place. CCP made sure that you can also make money in the PVP zones but your own choice mean you have to put more effort into it. Prove to me that the risk/reward ratio is more skewed than CCP intended and I will support your crusade because it will be then proven that the game is not balanced as it should be. Until you can do that, I will go with my own theory of "It's currently implemented the way CCP wants it".

It's not like nerfing the income of high-sec would be hard if they really wanted to nerf it.


CCP have nerfed null income many times but have not nerfed high sec income to match. Over the years this has resulted in an imbalance.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#114 - 2013-10-21 17:47:49 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


The issue here is that the half that want to change it are mainly in 0.0 and seem to want to do it to force those in hisec into 0.0. Those in hisec don't want to go to 0.0 and cannot see why their ISK levels should be nerfed to force them to do something they won't do and ruins their enjoyment by making it harder to gain shiny stuff.


Aaaaaaand paranoia again! "You just want to make me go to low/nullsec so you can gank me!"

No, they don't. That's just you protecting your golden goose. It's always the same trite and tired response when people tell you that highsec is raking in the cash at an inappropriate level.

So, there are two real possibilities here. Either people who like highsec will stay in highsec because they're cowards and won't go anywhere that doesn't have CONCORD.

Or, they will go because they will only go where the most money can be made, in which case we still need to nerf highsec because the very existence of those people in highsec is a damning condemnation of how much obscene amounts of money can be made there in almost total safety.

So, people who are in highsec now are there for one of two reasons: safety, or money. If they are there for safety, then they won't leave anyway. If they are there for money, that just goes to show that it's too lucrative.


Since we know money can also be made in low/null with the difference really being that it is more dangerous, then the amount of money made in high sec should not really bother you because you would also be making money. The choice of living in dangerous sapce is one players make by themself. If you want non-consentual PVP to not cost you a ship, then you ahve to live in more risky place. CCP made sure that you can also make money in the PVP zones but your own choice mean you have to put more effort into it. Prove to me that the risk/reward ratio is more skewed than CCP intended and I will support your crusade because it will be then proven that the game is not balanced as it should be. Until you can do that, I will go with my own theory of "It's currently implemented the way CCP wants it".

It's not like nerfing the income of high-sec would be hard if they really wanted to nerf it.


CCP have nerfed null income many times but have not nerfed high sec income to match. Over the years this has resulted in an imbalance.


Mostly because of the whole "supply and demand" thing, in fact. There is an unlimited supply of L4s. Anything you can do for comparable isk in nullsec is sharply limited in amount.

And that's the problem. Even one L4 agent in highsec can theoretically supply infinite amounts of players. In null, there flat out is not enough to go around. Which is why, btw, a lot of their line members run incursions or blitz L4s to make money, since fighting other people to get the anoms isn't worth the time or the trouble.

Buffing null isn't the solution. 2 areas of space that make too much money is a worse problem than before. Right now, highsec is head and shoulders above all 3 other areas of space. Bring it down to match.

"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.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#115 - 2013-10-21 17:58:50 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

Since we know money can also be made in low/null with the difference really being that it is more dangerous, then the amount of money made in high sec should not really bother you because you would also be making money. The choice of living in dangerous sapce is one players make by themself. If you want non-consentual PVP to not cost you a ship, then you ahve to live in more risky place. CCP made sure that you can also make money in the PVP zones but your own choice mean you have to put more effort into it. Prove to me that the risk/reward ratio is more skewed than CCP intended and I will support your crusade because it will be then proven that the game is not balanced as it should be. Until you can do that, I will go with my own theory of "It's currently implemented the way CCP wants it".

It's not like nerfing the income of high-sec would be hard if they really wanted to nerf it.

if parts of the game are badly balanced, and ccp intended it that way, then ccp intended wrong.
Xavier Higdon
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#116 - 2013-10-21 18:02:39 UTC
The problem is that everyone seems to want WOW In Spaaaace! They want to have unlimited interaction with the game client, and as little interaction with humans as possible. Whether this is 40 alt multiboxing fleets eating ice belts, or people running missions it doesn't matter. You're playing the game wrong if you're not interacting with other people.
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#117 - 2013-10-21 18:04:21 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:

if parts of the game are badly balanced.....


Which they arent

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#118 - 2013-10-21 18:09:26 UTC
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:

if parts of the game are badly balanced.....


Which they arent



His statement wasn't referring to anything, just a refutation of Frosty's odd statement.

It doesn't matter what part he's talking about. You could easily say it with ships, for instance. If attack battlecruisers are overpowered, whether CCP designed them that way or not, CCP is still wrong.

"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.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#119 - 2013-10-21 18:14:13 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Arduemont wrote:
Poor sov space literally has nothing that you can't get somewhere else. Nothing at all.

- you can build capitals/supers
- you can set up outposts and deny enemy docking rights
- you can have your name on a system
- you can run regular anomalies and mining sites with upgrades


I agree, poor sov space is still very viable.

La Nariz wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:

The issue here is that the half that want to change it are mainly in 0.0 and seem to want to do it to force those in hisec into 0.0. Those in hisec don't want to go to 0.0 and cannot see why their ISK levels should be nerfed to force them to do something they won't do and ruins their enjoyment by making it harder to gain shiny stuff.


This argument has come up in every single thread Malcanis has just verbally sighed about. "You want highsec nerfed so you can force highsec people into other sec areas." People want to be able to live and thrive in their own areas that's the simple. Its only easy to do this in highsec because its rewarded so well for the risk that is there. I don't see officer/faction fit vindicators as a common site in lowsec, I don't see it in nullsec or wormholes either. The reason for that is its not rewarded enough for people do decide its a good idea to do that.

I'm going to make the claim that the average person has a hard time thriving in their own space outside of highsec so they make alts and sit them in highsec to enable their actions outside of highsec.

That's only the case because reward > > > risk in highsec.


First of all I reject the simplistic risk/reward view that many of you have, its more like risk/reward/fun, for the average player running anoms is a lot better than running level 4's. And there is risk, you can get your mission ship ganked, or trigger the wrong ship and bang too much DPS and lots of webs and points.

In terms of the officer fit Vindicators that is a silly example, because who except for a few very can afford to fly something like that where you are likely to lose a ship, of course they won't take those into low sec or null, though I have in my time seen quite a few shiny ships in null.

And just because people have a mission alt which they run while waiting for PvP perhaps sitting on a Titan proves nothing, many people do that as they just warp out of the mission when it looks like they are going to get a fight. And because they are focussed on the PvP potential they cannot run a character doing anoms in 0.0. It makes sense and therefore proves nothing, just that its lower risk.

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
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#120 - 2013-10-21 18:20:23 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


It doesn't matter what part he's talking about. You could easily say it with ships, for instance. If attack battlecruisers are overpowered, whether CCP designed them that way or not, CCP is still wrong.



If the sun refuse to shine,
I don't mind, I don't mind,
If the mountains fell in the sea,
let it be, it ain't CCP.
Alright, 'cos I got my own world to look through,
And I ain't gonna copy you.


Still isnt though

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann