EVE General Discussion

Oh geebus, lord help me please, I'm falling down the stairs.

This subject makes me dizzy. And as a high-sec industrialist, seeing null players with expansive killboards debate my future in the game can be just a tad stressful. Because I like what I'm doing - even if other ppl think it should be much more difficult for me to do it or that my playstyle is invalid because it doesn't resonate in some way with their notion of what EVE should be.

A majority of characters are in high sec because it is high sec. This is an issue of security. You can move resources around all you like and characters will adapt because high sec will still offer the highest security. The vast majority of posts in this thread assume a majority of characters are in high sec because of its slot allocation or its resource allocation etc. but I propose that it is primarily because of CONCORD protection. Increased isk can already be obtained in lower security space. Increased risk is the problem.

High sec industrialists can mine their own zydrine consistently with but one jump into low sec yet the vast majority of them buy it off the market instead and absorb the cost.

You cannot force risk-averse averse players to become risk-takers by starving them.

Risk-averse players will not chase resources to null (ever) (and considering the tidi problems they're already having there it wouldn't even be advantageous for them to do so - i thought this is already why they're getting null 2.0) and I've seen no evidence that nullbears will suddely decide to manufacture in null while high sec perpetually will offer more safety, customers, easy targets, and the hubs.

The hubs aren't going anywhere as long as high sec offers more safety.

Reducing the average number of slots per high sec system will probably help balance out player fluidity - in high sec. Coupled with reduced refine rates, you could probably establish a population density of your choosing - in high sec. But if you're going to force hi sec industrialists into pos manufacturing by design, production of pos fuel needs to be made orders of magnitude less difficult (since you've just introduced a massive tax far beyond slot cost) and a mechanism to remove unpowered towers holding moons needs to be introduced pronto. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing near-perfect refine rates still obtainable with near-perfect npc corp / faction standings - they should relate in some fashion - just so long as perfection isn't freely given to everyone on day one.

It would be nice since I spent months raising my standings with 14 npc corps (so far) above 6.71 specifically to have multiple perfect refining options. And if I venture more than say 10 jumps from where I roam, (a necessity given that belts respawn in reduced quantities) I constantly run into systems only containing stations which are not part of that 14 and which are thus, not perfect refining options.

I do not agree with the repeated argument that once null has all the slots, resources, and the best of everything whatsoever, that those players will have 'no reason' to manufacture in high sec. I can think of several - the logistics of travelling to the hubs not being the least of them.

I'm not even convinced that resource allocation needs to be mathematically balanced or that it should even be balanced in any way that makes sense to players. It should be balanced in a way that maximizes player retention and the longevity of the product CCP is marketing. If that happens to coincide with what a subset of players thinks makes sense is most likely a secondary concern.

imo.

YK

Your point being?

Or do you actually think I should let them ruin the way I play the game instead? Because, and no mistake, they're trying to. They've been trying to since before I even started playing.

Concord, crimewatch, insurance nerfs, nerf after nerf after nerf, and all to make the way I play the game harder and harder, tightening the noose without end.

And I'm supposed to believe that they couldn't manage to take a nerf themselves? I'm supposed to believe that they deserve to be left alone at this point? That I shouldn't seize every opportunity to hang them with their own rope? That I'm supposed to "live and let live" while they try to legislate me out of existence?

And all because they say "I'll quit" if the slightest talk of tipping the scales in my favor occurs? Because they say they'll flip over the checkerboard if they don't win?

**** no.

You're being paranoïd, most of them don't even know you exist.


Again you're being either paranoïd or delusionnal, most are simply not even aware of your existence.
And about insurances it was more of a normalization than a nerf, with concord you literally decide to trash your own ship by attacking someone in highsec.
What kind of insurance company would pay you back for trashing the insured thing ?
None.


Win at what game exactly ?
Because if you're talking about highsec ganking then it seems like they are trying to avoid being part of the game.
Unless the cat and mouse thing is also part of the game, but I can safely say that they do not want it either.

…which is why it's not something that can happen in isolation, and which is why the “onoz, mah highsec!!” cries of fear and outrage tend to make themselves irrelevant since they've chosen to miss a huge part of the conversation.

For instance…No-one is suggesting anything along those lines either. Rather, the idea is to give the risk-takers something worth-while to actually put their stuff at risk for and to stop forcing them to play in the risk-free zone. The risk-averse can keep doing what they're doing, but they'll have to compensate for that safety somehow, most likely by increased costs and/or reduced capacity.

Hyperboles in this case then, rethorical overstatements.

You have lots of examples of the latter to show, then, since it's apparently so common…?

Common on these threads? Absolutely. Examples? Yes to that as well. In fact, you yourself haven't been shy about expressing how you feel about hi sec players and carebears in general. Chances are that, if it's a hi-sec- or carebear-hating thread, you're in it in support of this ideology.

Of course you are, snowflake. If they ain't playing like you, they playinitwrong™.

Over in features and ideas I met nullbears who were advocating for mining to be made into a mini-game because they get so bored mining their super-roids in null with nothing to do that they often play other games on a 2nd monitor. They laughed at me when I asked them how safe null really was and told me that if you're in a decent alliance it's much safer than high sec.

I explained to them that in high sec, I have to watch local because there are always people I don't know in my system and that I don't have super-roids. My rocks pop in 2-3 cycles usually and if they were mined the day before, even sooner, so as a high-sec industrialist, I didn't have time to play mining mini-games. I've got to multi-task constantly to maintain any desirable level of efficiency.

So what kind of post-apocalyptic vision do you guys propose for high sec, terrible enough to motivate all those 'risk-takers' to travel back to null where it is already so safe it's laughable? Whether you nerf high sec or buff null, the net result is buffing null. So how much booty is going to be enough to settle this argument definatively? Or what kind of scavanger/armageddon vision for high sec would supply null with enough of a sense of superiority to end this debate?

Or will this argument simply go so long as high sec exists?

YK

And who is it exactly that is trying to play like other people don't exist? Are you referring to hi sec players? Players avoiding PVP? Because it seems to me these players are playing exactly how the mechanics allow them to play.

I haven't (combat) PVP'd in my entire stay in Eve (~8 years) except maybe for once or twice, even though I spend most of my time in lo sec (75% of my time, to give a number). Do you think I'm playing the game wrong? Do you think I'm playing like other people don't exist?