These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

What would happen if CCP finally nerfed hisec?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#181 - 2014-01-10 20:47:58 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:


Quite frankly, considering the fact that PvE players have been and still are complaining about undesired interaction, your comment amount to a pile of BS.


They're just complaining louder.

Honestly, undesired interaction could use a buff. They went too far with Crimewatch and all that other stuff.

"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.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#182 - 2014-01-10 20:53:07 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:


Quite frankly, considering the fact that PvE players have been and still are complaining about undesired interaction, your comment amount to a pile of BS.


They're just complaining louder.

Honestly, undesired interaction could use a buff. They went too far with Crimewatch and all that other stuff.

The complaints are evidence of their presence creating content. I'm not saying that they are justified or that they are any indication of an imbalance in either direction, but rather that some forms of violence need victims and the "tears" show that role is being filled. content is being created even if one side doesn't intend for it to happen.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#183 - 2014-01-10 20:59:35 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
I strongly suspect that the "only plays in high sec" type player is a minority (and a disinterested, disorganized minority at that), as evidenced by high sec inability and sheer unwillingness to group together for anything like fighting goons or electing CSMs. In other words, the mythical high sec majority is just that, a myth.


I would go even further. I suspect that the majority of this minority is not coming to the forums to complain about anything (sorry Pipa and Tippia, no hard numbers). Most "only plays in high sec" players either don't frequent the forums or are just as fed up with people complaining and begging for changes to game mechanics as those people who classify themselves as null and lo-sec players.

Most of us high sec players like the game exactly as it is. Most of us don't want 100% safety. We also don't want a lawless suckfest but we understand what this game is and adapt and pilot our ships accordingly.

As I said in a previous post in this thread. The idea is to cater to a broad base. I think CCP has struck a good balance. Sure there will be a few who will come here and ***** because someone shot them, but those people are ******* stupid and likely deserved whatever happened to them because they felt that they were entitled to safety. They are not. I also suspect that they are a minority.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Pipa Porto
#184 - 2014-01-10 21:09:04 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
I would go even further. I suspect that the majority of this minority is not coming to the forums to complain about anything (sorry Pipa and Tippia, no hard numbers). Most "only plays in high sec" players either don't frequent the forums or are just as fed up with people complaining and begging for changes to game mechanics as those people who classify themselves as null and lo-sec players.


Weasel words are here for all of our safety. Proper use of them should be encouraged. You're using them exactly right.

I agree with your guess that most HS players aren't on the forums, in part because most players aren't on the forums. But that's not particularly relevant.

Quote:
Most of us high sec players like the game exactly as it is. Most of us don't want 100% safety. We also don't want a lawless suckfest but we understand what this game is and adapt and pilot our ships accordingly.


And that's great. The problem is that the rewards available in HS with its high level of safety are too high compared to less safe areas. This is why so many Low and Null Sec players have HS alts to make money with.

This can be fixed in 2 ways:
Make HS relatively less safe (i.e. make it absolutely less safe or make other areas absolutely more safe)
Make HS relatively less rewarding (i.e. make it absolutely less rewarding or make other areas absolutely more rewarding)

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#185 - 2014-01-10 21:09:56 UTC
If you actually played the game you would know about the hundreds of changes CCP has made to the game that inhibited and hindered most facets of hisec. Your post is a sad attempt at internet fame and backed by exactly zero thought to the mechanics of the game.

For the record the developers have a blog where you can read about these mysterious changes.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
Pipa Porto
#186 - 2014-01-10 21:13:23 UTC
Cipher Jones wrote:
If you actually played the game you would know about the hundreds of changes CCP has made to the game that inhibited and hindered most facets of hisec.


Can you name any of them?

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#187 - 2014-01-10 21:22:28 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
This is why so many Low and Null Sec players have HS alts to make money with.


And by "nerfing" HS, what effect does that have on low and null sec players using those alts in HS to make money?

Pipa Porto wrote:
This can be fixed in 2 ways:
Make HS relatively less safe (i.e. make it absolutely less safe or make other areas absolutely more safe)
Make HS relatively less rewarding (i.e. make it absolutely less rewarding or make other areas absolutely more rewarding)


I think I get where you're coming from but what is the end result? What is the vision? I guess I would like to know the specifics of how this would be done and to what end?

It's like HS miners repeatedly saying, "We want HS to be safer!" My question is, "How much safer?" "How safe is enough?" I am curious that if people want HS to be less safe then the same question should apply, "How much more dangerous?" How dangerous is enough?" or from the second "fix", "How less rewarding?" "How less rewarding is enough?"

It seems that no matter how safe or rewarding or unsafe and not rewarding it is, someone somewhere is not going to be happy about it and it will never be enough in either direction unless it is 100% safe (**** that) or 100% not safe (**** that too).

Forgive me if I seem obtuse.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Pipa Porto
#188 - 2014-01-10 21:39:24 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
And by "nerfing" HS, what effect does that have on low and null sec players using those alts in HS to make money?


They start being able to make money where they live.

Quote:
I think I get where you're coming from but what is the end result? What is the vision? I guess I would like to know the specifics of how this would be done and to what end?


You should be able to make more money in less safe areas. The whole "higher risk gets higher reward" principle.
There should be an actual decision to make between accepting a lower income in the safety of HS and accepting higher risk in the high income zones of Low and Null sec. Right now, you can get high income and high safety at the same time, so there's no reason to make your income in Null.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#189 - 2014-01-10 21:45:57 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
And by "nerfing" HS, what effect does that have on low and null sec players using those alts in HS to make money?


They start being able to make money where they live.

Quote:
I think I get where you're coming from but what is the end result? What is the vision? I guess I would like to know the specifics of how this would be done and to what end?


You should be able to make more money in less safe areas. The whole "higher risk gets higher reward" principle.
There should be an actual decision to make between accepting a lower income in the safety of HS and accepting higher risk in the high income zones of Low and Null sec. Right now, you can get high income and high safety at the same time, so there's no reason to make your income in Null.

And where is the balance point for that? At what point does the income differential actually overcome the desire for relative safety and resulting reduction of effort?
Pipa Porto
#190 - 2014-01-10 21:58:50 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
And where is the balance point for that? At what point does the income differential actually overcome the desire for relative safety and resulting reduction of effort?


That's a question that can only be answered empirically. Make small changes to the income levels of PvE in both areas then wait and see the metrics. HS is going to have to be nerfed though (primarily l4s and Incursions), even if only because that's far simpler than buffing every other source of income in a balanced way.

HS Industry, on the other hand, needs to be kicked hard. Right now HS offers unlimited quantities of free slots in perfect safety. There is no way to make nullsec compete with that without breaking the game, so it has to be nerfed a lot. (I make my ISK off of HS industry.)

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#191 - 2014-01-10 22:02:25 UTC
I've always loved discussing things with you Ruby. I've always found you very insightful. You're the reason that when I do mine in HS (once maybe a year) I do it in a Rokh.

Pipa Porto wrote:
They start being able to make money where they live.


So the idea is to nerf HS because Null sucks? I thought that was where all the awesome stuff comes from. T2 BPOs and crazy profitable ore and such.

Pipa Porto wrote:
You should be able to make more money in less safe areas. The whole "higher risk gets higher reward" principle.There should be an actual decision to make between accepting a lower income in the safety of HS and accepting higher risk in the high income zones of Low and Null sec. Right now, you can get high income and high safety at the same time, so there's no reason to make your income in Null.


I get it! There is too much carrot and not enough stick in HS. I can fly missions all day long and rarely fear for getting my ship blown up. But the connection that I'm still not seeing is why nerfing HS helps anyone. Nerfing HS does not change the fact that Null sucks ISK-wise and no amount of changing HS alone is going to make Null suck any less in that regard.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#192 - 2014-01-10 22:16:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Pipa Porto wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
And where is the balance point for that? At what point does the income differential actually overcome the desire for relative safety and resulting reduction of effort?


That's a question that can only be answered empirically. Make small changes to the income levels of PvE in both areas then wait and see the metrics. HS is going to have to be nerfed though (primarily l4s and Incursions), even if only because that's far simpler than buffing every other source of income in a balanced way.

HS Industry, on the other hand, needs to be kicked hard. Right now HS offers unlimited quantities of free slots in perfect safety. There is no way to make nullsec compete with that without breaking the game, so it has to be nerfed a lot. (I make my ISK off of HS industry.)

I can't speak for everyone of course, but the prevalence of characters in highsec I would strongly relate to the relative ease rather than simply putting it as a question of income. The idea of changing from taking a few minor measures which reduce your value as a target to constantly having to watch your surroundings because you are always a viable target has a cost alone. And that's simply considering effort alone, much less actual variances caused by losses or interruption (having to flee from hostiles/etc). I'm sure that of those who use highsec alts there is a probably sizable segment that wants to get their isk where they live, but I'd wager that there is another comparable segment that can't be bothered that will in turn skew the perceived balance.

Industry: I'd think it wouldn't need to be wrecked, just have an increase in cost enough to be relevant or decrease in efficiency just enough to provide incentive elsewhere. Maybe some of both. That said I'm not heavily involved there, so I'll defer to your experience.
Pipa Porto
#193 - 2014-01-10 22:31:09 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
So the idea is to nerf HS because Null sucks? I thought that was where all the awesome stuff comes from. T2 BPOs and crazy profitable ore and such.


T2 BPOs (when the lottery was around) came from R&D agents. Which were in HS and LS.
Nullsec mining is in better shape than it was, and is probably in better shape relative to HS than Anoms are relative to HS incursions and l4s.

Quote:
I get it! There is too much carrot and not enough stick in HS. I can fly missions all day long and rarely fear for getting my ship blown up. But the connection that I'm still not seeing is why nerfing HS helps anyone. Nerfing HS does not change the fact that Null sucks ISK-wise and no amount of changing HS alone is going to make Null suck any less in that regard.


Absolute rewards are irrelevant. Relative rewards matter. Nullsec doesn't "suck ISK-wise" it's just not as good as HS.

To put it another way, Imagine there were only two ways to make money in EVE. One pays 1m ISK/hr and the other pays 1.1m ISK/hr. Would it be any different if the first instead paid 10m ISK/hr and the second 11m ISK/hr? No, because the second still just pays 10% more. If you wanted to change the difference to 20%, would it matter if you did it by reducing the income of the first source or increasing the income of the second? No, because the second would just pay 20% more either way.

HS is popular because it is better than Nullsec for making money. To fix that, you can either make HS less good (nerf HS), or Nullsec better (buff Nullsec). Buffing Nullsec suddenly makes WH and LS space relatively worse than they are now, and so on. Nerfing HS (which is the outlying high value area for income) is far simpler than trying to buff every other source of income evenly.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#194 - 2014-01-10 22:45:44 UTC
Quote:
Nerfing HS (which is the outlying high value area for income) is far simpler than trying to buff every other source of income evenly.


Especially since, as far as income goes, nerfing is always preferable to buffing. Just because buffing income is an almost instant cause of inflation.

"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.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#195 - 2014-01-10 23:23:38 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
HS is popular because it is better than Nullsec for making money.


I'm not sure this is completely accurate.

I obviously can't speak for everyone in HS but part of the reason I have no desire to head over to Null has little to do with making money. Rightly or wrongly, the perception of nullsec alliances is that they're only interested in scamming people, griefing people, and engaging in general asshattery. If the motto of a group of people is that they just want to ruin your game (not a GRR GOONS post**) why would I be enticed to subject myself to that kind of crap? That somehow making more ISK would be worth having my game ruined is ludicrous.

If the intent is to encourage people like myself to move to nullsec then I think the folks in nullsec need to work on the perceived image they have. For me at least, I am happy to just run missions. Not for the immense amounts of ISK I make, but because I generally don't have to deal with any bullshit shenanigans during any session of playing. Take away the ISK and I'll still be in HS so long as I don't have to deal with the bullshit shenanigans.

**Sorry to single out GSF on here but it was the most readily available snip from a mission statement I could think of at the time of this post.



"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Pipa Porto
#196 - 2014-01-11 00:23:11 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
HS is popular because it is better than Nullsec for making money.


I'm not sure this is completely accurate.

I obviously can't speak for everyone in HS but part of the reason I have no desire to head over to Null has little to do with making money.


Sorry, I meant the popularity of making money in HS among people already living in Nullsec.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
#197 - 2014-01-11 00:27:09 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
Diamond Zerg wrote:
Hello.

My prediction: Suddenly EVE becomes much more fun, and a better game in general.



... and next you will list some successful pure PvP MMOs. Good luck with that.



Well said. Highsec isn't safe as is. Anyone can ruin your day already - I don't see how making it easier is going to make the game more successful.
Natassia Krasnoo
R3D SHIFT
#198 - 2014-01-11 00:32:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Natassia Krasnoo
Diamond Zerg wrote:
Hello.

My prediction: Suddenly EVE becomes much more fun, and a better game in general.

Bots are no longer worthwhile as they make easy targets for PvPers.
The EVE economy becomes dominated by intelligent humans, not machines or "bot aspirant" grinders.

Due to the rapid deflation of the market, low and nullsec players find it much easier to use ingame methods to make ISK
(as their main competition, the botting/multiboxing afk/semi afk hisec players' advantage has been nullified.)

Solo and small gang pvp can now be found in abundance as there are targets and organisations of varying sizes everywhere.

Politics and the metagame get a lot deeper as even PvE focused gamers would have to consider how other players affect their gameplay.


What are your thoughts on what would happen if CCP finally nerfed hisec?

Edit:

Hold on a minute guys, I'm getting a lot of replies about how the hisec PvE population will quit.

To me, this doesn't make much sense. There are many other games with a much more focused, sophisticated PVE experience.

Why would many PvE gamers play a game that doesn't have much PvE content?


HA HA HA HA HA! I'm not sure whether you're trolling, delirious, or if you are serious, either way....um no.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#199 - 2014-01-11 00:40:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Rinn
Pipa Porto wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
And where is the balance point for that? At what point does the income differential actually overcome the desire for relative safety and resulting reduction of effort?


That's a question that can only be answered empirically. Make small changes to the income levels of PvE in both areas then wait and see the metrics. HS is going to have to be nerfed though (primarily l4s and Incursions), even if only because that's far simpler than buffing every other source of income in a balanced way.


What happens when we find that your hypothesis is wrong, and what drives null sec pilots to make ISK in hi sec is the AFK safety, knowing full well that the potential income in null sec is an order of magnitude higher but requires them to be at-keyboard? What about the players to care bear it up in hi sec to avoid CTAs?

Would a reduction in the numbers of people in hi sec by players leaving the game be a "win" or "lose" outcome for you?

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Abraham Nalelmir
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#200 - 2014-01-11 00:54:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Abraham Nalelmir
Diamond Zerg wrote:


To me, this doesn't make much sense. There are many other games with a much more focused, sophisticated PVE experience.

Why would many PvE gamers play a game that doesn't have much PvE content?

You said it right "finally"... "to me", so it is you there but you forgot a lot of other people around who live off PVE in highsec missions...
Really cannot get to understand yet how people base their arguments over highsec when they want to talk something about it...

/incoming_sarcasm

It is like the highsec carebears demanding to nerf highsec ganking... except other space carebears are whining here to nerf highsec just because it did not fit them or their play style...

How about I ask that titans get into highsec because I don't like them being in low/null only and I want them to be able to fire their doomsday anywhere because why not? it will make more ships blow up, thus pushing economy more and more!

/end_of_sarcasm

Mining is the most dangerous profession can be done in highsec, because it is so simple, the miner will not realize that his "safety" in the belt is at the stake of someone feels bored so he come in and shoot him.
Level 4 missions are not better than mining... if you get a "rude" ninja-salvager and you **** him, then you will either lose your ship or get your corp wardecced and that is not good for you, but it is good for the other side...
When you go to Jita, just make sure not to be afk, or else you will get scanned on your way and get blown up on the next gate.

So for some point I'd say highsec is working as intended...

And answering your question about why PVE'ers play a PVP focused game... maybe you don't know that those PVE'ers many of them got main PVP chars and they are using the extra safety of highsec to generate some isk to cover their PVP expenses?

In Go.. ECM I trust