These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Prince Kobol
#261 - 2014-01-11 12:31:23 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Read Baltec's corp/alliance. Then his posting history. Then understand he will keep posting till Null Sec is king and high sec is nothing but newbie systems and all worship Mittani.
Some of the other goons actually have some reasoning behind their arguments, not just blind hate for high sec.


This is why so many people get upset with the self entitlement of a selection of High Sec players.

I am about as opposite of a goon as you can get and yet I completely agree that at the moment the whole risk v reward in regards to earning isk and time v effort in regards to industry is totally in favour of HS.

This needs to be fixed.

I will not advocate "Just Nerf HS" as that will not fix the problem.

I have said a number of times that to fix both issues it will take many changes, some small, some large across the entire of New Eden.

In regards to Industry you have to be insane to mass produce anything outside of HS (game mechanics alowwing)

In regards to earning isk, if you want a stable and good isk earning base with little risk then you go to HS and run lvl4 missions or run incursions.

I would love CCP to produce the numbers of which area's of space people are running missions and where the most manufacturing is done as I would bet that both low and null would be in single digits as a percentage.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#262 - 2014-01-11 12:32:09 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
TharOkha wrote:


i dont understand why do you want to reduce manufacturng slots in hisec... Its overcrowded here already.


There are hundreds of empty manufacturing slots within 5 jumps of Jita.


Than may I suggest that whilst running missions in hi-sec, null-sec folk could utilize these empty manufacturing slots.


We do, that's the problem. We want to build our things in our space but we are punished if we do that by the game mechanics.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#263 - 2014-01-11 12:38:29 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


We do, that's the problem. We want to build our things in our space but we are punished if we do that by the game mechanics.

Except you aren't punished any more. Not with hundreds of slots with bonuses to certain types of construction. You just won't be satisfied till high sec can't produce anything anywhere near the price null can. Nothing to do with entitlement other than yours. You believe you are entitled to the best at everything and everyone else gets the dregs. Someone else has something EQUAL and you scream. Because the costs for the industrialist don't include the outposts.
Shirley Serious
Gutter Press
#264 - 2014-01-11 12:40:42 UTC
I remember, a while back, someone stated something along the lines of that the entire station-based daily manufacturing capacity of one of the nullsec regions, (possibly Deklein?), was not enough to cover just the daily ammunition expenditure in that region.

Just ammunition. The simplest, cheapest thing you can manufacture. Some ammunition iirc, only requires 2 different minerals.

Just the facts.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#265 - 2014-01-11 12:42:09 UTC
Probably was true sometime back Shirley, but Null industry received HUGE buffs less than a year ago, and most of them are still talking pre buff for their arguments.
Josef Djugashvilis
#266 - 2014-01-11 12:42:36 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
TharOkha wrote:


i dont understand why do you want to reduce manufacturng slots in hisec... Its overcrowded here already.


There are hundreds of empty manufacturing slots within 5 jumps of Jita.


Than may I suggest that whilst running missions in hi-sec, null-sec folk could utilize these empty manufacturing slots.


We do, that's the problem. We want to build our things in our space but we are punished if we do that by the game mechanics.


I am not in the least bit against null-sec industry etc being improved, with the proviso that if null-sec becomes effectively self supporting and self contained, that null sec folk stop whinging on the forums and just do whatever it is they do in their own 'shard' of the game.

This is not a signature.
Pipa Porto
#267 - 2014-01-11 12:44:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


We do, that's the problem. We want to build our things in our space but we are punished if we do that by the game mechanics.

Except you aren't punished any more. Not with hundreds of slots with bonuses to certain types of construction. You just won't be satisfied till high sec can't produce anything anywhere near the price null can. Nothing to do with entitlement other than yours. You believe you are entitled to the best at everything and everyone else gets the dregs. Someone else has something EQUAL and you scream. Because the costs for the industrialist don't include the outposts.


Point to the nullsec system that can provide 700 slots.

If the facilities are just equal, HS is still strictly better. No required capital investment (which has to be paid for), no shipping costs, and no risk of any type.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#268 - 2014-01-11 12:45:16 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Then you are arguing for a specific system to be nerfed Tippia. Not high sec in general, since high sec in general does not have anything remotely close to your claims.

No, I'm arguing for making all of highsec offer less — that one system being able to provide more production than an entire region is just an example of how bad the imbalance is.

Trying to claim that it's “patently false” that highsec has a massive slot advantage when there's no way to make a fully upgraded nullsec system come even within a fraction of what a single highsec system can provide is thoroughly disingenuous. And we haven't even begun talking about what it takes to actually create such an outpost.

Now, you realise, of course, that your argument about empty or low-equipped systems holds just as true for nullsec right? So even if we were talking about averages, it wouldn't change a thing: highsec offers for free many times more than null could ever do even at vast expense.

If you want numbers, how about this: highsec as a whole offers (for free) 2,890 copy slots, 5,780 ME slots, 5,780 PE slots, 68,050 production slots, and (curiously enough) 5,800 invention slots. Want to take a stab at guessing how many null — which is three times larger — provides…?

Quote:
Except you aren't punished any more.
…aside from being mechanically restricted to low-number/low-efficiency/low-capacity/high-cost/high-risk slots for no good reason.

Quote:
Someone else has something EQUAL and you scream.
Ah, I see your point of confusion now. You think baltec represents the “highsec must not be balanced” cabal. No, he's just asking for equality (at least… preferably something that actually rewards risk-taking and large-scale investments).
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#269 - 2014-01-11 12:45:59 UTC
Since CCP has decided that the MTU thing is a bug, it's pretty clear they're not actually interested in having conflict drivers in highsec.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#270 - 2014-01-11 12:47:04 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Probably was true sometime back Shirley, but Null industry received HUGE buffs less than a year ago, and most of them are still talking pre buff for their arguments.

By “huge buffs”, you're talking about slightly improved local access to minerals and a small but rather meaningless increase in the slots provided by specialised outposts — increases that still were an order of magnitude too small and which did not affect any of the deep-seated imbalances.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#271 - 2014-01-11 12:49:52 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


We do, that's the problem. We want to build our things in our space but we are punished if we do that by the game mechanics.

Except you aren't punished any more. Not with hundreds of slots with bonuses to certain types of construction. You just won't be satisfied till high sec can't produce anything anywhere near the price null can. Nothing to do with entitlement other than yours. You believe you are entitled to the best at everything and everyone else gets the dregs. Someone else has something EQUAL and you scream. Because the costs for the industrialist don't include the outposts.

We ARE entitled to the best.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#272 - 2014-01-11 12:50:55 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:


Point to the nullsec system that can provide 700 slots.

If the facilities are just equal, HS is strictly better. No required capital investment, no shipping costs, and no risk of any type.

Point to the nullsec system that has more than 0 slots. I can cherry pick data too using the most suitable high sec system for my argument. The average high sec system does not have 700 slots, or even close to that. While a single Null outpost can have several hundred slots now with 50% time bonuses to certain types of construction. Meaning it is very possible for Null to far exceed the overall industrial capacity if they choose to build the outposts.

Capital investment is a one off cost which is done for more than just industrialists, making it very hard to assign an actual industry cost to it. Additionally as time approaches lots, capital investment cost = 0.
Shipping costs apply to high sec also since most High end minerals are imported to High sec, as is all moon goo/products and most PI products. So the shipping goes two ways.
And high sec certainly has risk. It may be lower risk in theory, but I'd argue industrial/freighter kills are probably far more common in high. Though I don't have hard stats on that and I'd love to see them. But it isn't zero risk.

Additionally since the facilities have a time bonus, for a single industrialist the null facilities are better, since they produce up to twice the goods in the same time as a matching high sec industrialist.
Vespiidius
The Icarus Expedition
Solyaris Chtonium
#273 - 2014-01-11 12:54:22 UTC
Nerf, hisec (whatever that means) and you'd simply have an entire cluster of the dual hegemonic boredom you have now instead of just a donut. With the changes to POCOS you may see Hegemonic creep anyway. As someone who has done industry in hisec and nullsec, it's quite difficult to find open research slots anywhere near a a high sec trade hub, thus the hisec POS, a costly project with inherent risk. It also takes a lot longer to collect the same ISK amount of ore as your nullsec brethren, and that is assuming you don't have a roleplayer, playing pattie-cake with your ships rear end and yelling about ore permits or saving the roids. Just going off my personal experience, CCP seems intent upon making the miner and industrialist (the ones who actually get their hands dirty, not the entrenched fabulously wealthy middle men) the red headed step child of Eve. Instead of "Nerf Hisec," how about getting original and demanding a game from CCP where nullsec can do what frontiers have historically done, provide resources to the home country and then over time through the mechanism of civilization, build up an industrial base, i.e. a real boost to outposts and POS modules in null. It would make sense for example to have a mechanism where you could gain a boost to research slots or time etc... depending upon the amount of time you A. held sov or B. upgraded the system, or some combination of both. This boost of course reaching the same level of a hisec trade hub station but not exceeding it. Ten years into the game we should be seeing the nullsec empires wandering away from hisec, not needing them and no longer dominated by them, though for gameplay sake, not able to displace them either. An idea it seems CCP Seagull is now embracing, a buff to null not a nerf to hisec.

Making nullsec work (no, it doesn't now) doesn't have to be a zero sum game where high sec loses.

On a seperate note, one is forced to think that threads such as this are either a strange hazing ritual for nullsec alliance alts or sperging cries for help from players who are so incapacitated from their own rage at CCP's negligence, that they have resorted to kicking the fat kid in the playground just because the swings never seem to be in working order.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#274 - 2014-01-11 12:54:25 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


We do, that's the problem. We want to build our things in our space but we are punished if we do that by the game mechanics.

Except you aren't punished any more. Not with hundreds of slots with bonuses to certain types of construction. You just won't be satisfied till high sec can't produce anything anywhere near the price null can. Nothing to do with entitlement other than yours. You believe you are entitled to the best at everything and everyone else gets the dregs. Someone else has something EQUAL and you scream. Because the costs for the industrialist don't include the outposts.


It still costs more to build in null than build in high and ship it to null. We also still do not have enough slots.

Why should the people willing to take risks not get better rewards over someone operating with near perfect safety?
TharOkha
0asis Group
#275 - 2014-01-11 12:56:39 UTC  |  Edited by: TharOkha
Tippia wrote:

Prime time is not a factor since you can just queue the jobs up at your leisure and since they can, will, and do at all hours of the day.


Yes prime time would be a significant factor. While people not on prime time could go 1-2j from jita to manufacture some modules and ships and complete them in a few hours (even BS can be made under 4hr) and on the same day put them on the market, those on prime time would need to wait in line and put them on market the other day (or move 10j from tradehub).

Waiting in line is a major factor even today if you are making short manufacturing time goods

Quote:
Yes, you also have to increase the costs, but one without the other will have no real effect. One is to make it necessary to spread out; the other is to also make it a good idea to do so....


Yes, but while one is literally forcing people to spread (or move to null), the other one is giving them a choice to rethink if it is viable to manufacture in tradehubs or move to more distant MS but with a lot cheaper manufacturing costs.

Applying both nerfs would be liquidating to big portion of players.

The only reasonable solution for this is to buff outpost so they would be as good as stations in hisec (or even better) and increased manufacturing costs arround trade hubs.

CODE. Venture hunt contest in a nutshell
Miri Draconis
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#276 - 2014-01-11 12:57:44 UTC
Diamond Zerg wrote:
What would happen if CCP finally nerfed hisec?


A sharp decrease in players.

If you're making less nullbearing than highbearing, you suck. Don't take your awfulness out on the place in the game that keeps the most people subscribed, just accept it and move on.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#277 - 2014-01-11 12:58:42 UTC
Safety is all relative.

As for outpost numbers....

Amarr Factory Outpost:

Manufacturing: 50 (+30).
Copying: 2 (+1).
ME Research: 2 (+1).
PE Research: 2 (+1)
Offices: 16 (+12).
Amarr Factory Upgrade: 20(+15), 40(+33), 60(+51) Manufacturing lines.
Amarr Plant Upgrade: 20(+17), 40(+35), 60(+53) Manufacturing lines.
Amarr Lab Upgrade: 3(+5), 5(+13), 7(+21) Copying, ME, PE slots.
Amarr Office Upgrade: 10(+7), 15(+11), 20(+13) Offices.


I'd call about a 400-500% increase in slots in just a single factory outpost pretty damn significant.

Now, if the argument is about POS slots, then high sec POS slots cost more for starters. And you then aren't talking about High Vs Null, but Station/Outpost vs POS, regardless of space.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#278 - 2014-01-11 13:01:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
The average high sec system does not have 700 slots, or even close to that. While a single Null outpost can have several hundred slots now with 50% time bonuses to certain types of construction. Meaning it is very possible for Null to far exceed the overall industrial capacity if they choose to build the outposts.
No, they really can't because you can only push the outpost in one direction for every outpost and since even if you do that, the total is still less than what a highsec industry system can offer, and since the combinations of upgrades required to make a NPC-station equivalent aren't even allowed on the same outpost.

But sure, let's not compare to Nonni. Could you build me the best industry outpost imaginable. It obviously needs a 50% refinery, as many manufacturing slots as possible, and preferably a whole bunch of research slots as well.

Quote:
Capital investment is a one off cost which is done for more than just industrialists, making it very hard to assign an actual industry cost to it. Additionally as time approaches lots, capital investment cost = 0.
…which is hellalot worse than having the cost = 0 from the very instant you start.

Quote:
Shipping costs apply to high sec also since most High end minerals are imported to High sec, as is all moon goo/products and most PI products.
Shipping costs only apply between the point of acquisition (a trade hub for both high and nullsec) and the point of production. Someone else has already shipped it to where you acquire it, and that cost is equal for everyone.

Quote:
Additionally since the facilities have a time bonus, for a single industrialist the null facilities are better, since they produce up to twice the goods in the same time as a matching high sec industrialist.
A time bonus is just a slot number multiplier, and the single industrialist is irrelevant here: we're talking about what the entire population can do. If that single industrialist bogarts the slots, his corpmate is left without so the facility is actually much worse…

Quote:
I'd call about a 400-500% increase in slots in just a single factory outpost pretty damn significant.
I call it a very tiny fraction of what was needed, and irrelevant on its own without the other changes that make them actually useful.
blabla4711
Doomheim
#279 - 2014-01-11 13:06:28 UTC  |  Edited by: blabla4711
baltec1 wrote:

Why should the people willing to take risks not get better rewards over someone operating with near perfect safety?



The usual shitposting of a goon .... afk-farming moongoo for years in ludicrous amounts for example is no "better reward"?
Buying opponents with isk instead of fighting them is "willing to take risks"?

Spare us your usual bullshit of a poor nullbear pubbie.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#280 - 2014-01-11 13:09:09 UTC
blabla4711 wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

Why should the people willing to take risks not get better rewards over someone operating with near perfect safety?



The usual shitposting of a goon .... afk-farming moongoo for years in ludicrous amounts for example is no "better reward"?

Spare us your usual bullshit of a poor nullbear pubbie.


And what does moon goo have to do with building ships and mods?

Answer the question, why should you not get more reward for an activity for taking more risks?