These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Pipa Porto
#361 - 2014-01-12 08:21:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
TharOkha wrote:
EXACTLY. Nullsec industry WILL NEVER BE SO EASY AS IN HISEC as far as hisec will be main trade hub. You can buff nullsec and nerf hisec as much as you want. This will never change. Hisec is industrial superpower. Deal with it.


HS has an excess supply of free, perfect, risk free slots. It is quite literally impossible to compete with that.

If the result of various industry changes is that Nullsec industry is harder or more risky than HS, but pays better, BINGO, mission accomplished.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#362 - 2014-01-12 08:26:03 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
TharOkha wrote:
EXACTLY. Nullsec industry WILL NEVER BE SO EASY AS IN HISEC as far as hisec will be main trade hub. You can buff nullsec and nerf hisec as much as you want. This will never change. Hisec is industrial superpower. Deal with it.


HS has an excess supply of free, perfect, risk free slots. It is quite literally impossible to compete with that.

If the result of various industry changes is that Nullsec industry is harder or more risky than HS, but pays better, BINGO, mission accomplished.


Hell I would settle for just being able to compete with highsec.
blabla4711
Doomheim
#363 - 2014-01-12 08:26:23 UTC  |  Edited by: blabla4711
baltec1 wrote:
Hasikan Miallok wrote:


I really do not see what forcing casual players, especially the ones with real lives who are not glued to the keyboard every night while mummy brings them snacks and dinner, to just quit can achieve.



I am a casual player with a job and things to do around the house.

A good chunk of my corp have children to look after, jobs to go to etc. This argument is a myth and should never stop CCP from correctly balancing the game.



Suuuuure ..... just like every supposed-to-be-female on the internet is a female for real ..... or the web grafitti of your master is really famous on the internet outside of your gooniverse .... or ccp had to enter a military complex to see ramsan-devices instead of just calling tms inc. at this time and get some test devices 2 years before ccp ever heard of them like any other company .... youre a brain surgeon with a house and family numbered 8+ at least and just post here 24x7 while you rest between the live saving ops you do each day.

The internet is full of truth ....

Wait .... didnt you say in the past that you post bs here because you fear ccp patch something because of posts of other persons on this forum as it had happened in the past you think? n1.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#364 - 2014-01-12 08:35:43 UTC
blabla4711 wrote:

The internet is full of truth ....


Most EVE players have jobs. The whole casual players argument is nothing but a myth, very few are able to play 12+ hours a day.
blabla4711
Doomheim
#365 - 2014-01-12 08:42:29 UTC  |  Edited by: blabla4711
baltec1 wrote:
blabla4711 wrote:

The internet is full of truth ....


Most EVE players have jobs. The whole casual players argument is nothing but a myth, very few are able to play 12+ hours a day.


And why are you posting here? Most eve players dont play in nullsec. Most eve players dont care about your sandbox. Most eve players dont give a rats arse what nullsec does. Most eve players dont even read here let alone post.

So why do you pretend YOU speak on their behalf and have nerdrage about THEIR sandbox?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#366 - 2014-01-12 08:45:55 UTC
blabla4711 wrote:


And why are you posting here? Most eve players dont play in nullsec. Most eve players dont care about your sandbox. Most eve players dont give a rats arse what nullsec does. Most eve players dont even read here let alone post.

So why do you pretend YOU speak on their behalf and have nerdrage about THEIR sandbox?


Tell me, why should I and everyone else in null sec be forced to build in empire space rather than in our null sec empires?
blabla4711
Doomheim
#367 - 2014-01-12 08:51:39 UTC  |  Edited by: blabla4711
baltec1 wrote:
blabla4711 wrote:


And why are you posting here? Most eve players dont play in nullsec. Most eve players dont care about your sandbox. Most eve players dont give a rats arse what nullsec does. Most eve players dont even read here let alone post.

So why do you pretend YOU speak on their behalf and have nerdrage about THEIR sandbox?


Tell me, why should I and everyone else in null sec be forced to build in empire space rather than in our null sec empires?


I dont care because i do the "adapt or die" you like to post instead of the "cry, stomp and lie on the forums" approach of persons like you who represent about 11% of the playerbase according to ccp.

Nice try to change the subject btw but in vain. Dont cry in here to change the sandbox of others .... play your own or quit .... nobody put a gun at your head ..... or like persons like you like to say .... htfu.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#368 - 2014-01-12 08:53:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Kimmi Chan
baltec1 wrote:
blabla4711 wrote:


And why are you posting here? Most eve players dont play in nullsec. Most eve players dont care about your sandbox. Most eve players dont give a rats arse what nullsec does. Most eve players dont even read here let alone post.

So why do you pretend YOU speak on their behalf and have nerdrage about THEIR sandbox?


Tell me, why should I and everyone else in null sec be forced to build in empire space rather than in our null sec empires?


Choices have consequences.

If a miner chooses not to tank their hull or chooses to mine AFK, those choices have consequences.

If a player chooses to live in nullsec, having full knowledge of the challenges that choosing that lifestyle presents, those choices have consequences.

The idea that you are being forced to do anything is no less victimizing than miners losing their **** about gankers. The difference here is that you don't feel that you should have to HTFU?

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
TharOkha
0asis Group
#369 - 2014-01-12 08:55:34 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
TharOkha wrote:
EXACTLY. Nullsec industry WILL NEVER BE SO EASY AS IN HISEC as far as hisec will be main trade hub. You can buff nullsec and nerf hisec as much as you want. This will never change. Hisec is industrial superpower. Deal with it.


HS has an excess supply of free, perfect, risk free slots. It is quite literally impossible to compete with that.

If the result of various industry changes is that Nullsec industry is harder or more risky than HS, but pays better, BINGO, mission accomplished.


I agree. And if you read my previous posts carefully, i support the idea that hi sec slots should be significantly more expensive as those in low/null. And that sov outposts should be superior to hisec stations.

My reaction is mainly against the complains that hisec industry is much easier in logistic and haul than in null. Which cannot be changed as far as hisec is well supplied EVE trade hub.

CODE. Venture hunt contest in a nutshell
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#370 - 2014-01-12 09:04:47 UTC
TharOkha wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
TharOkha wrote:
EXACTLY. Nullsec industry WILL NEVER BE SO EASY AS IN HISEC as far as hisec will be main trade hub. You can buff nullsec and nerf hisec as much as you want. This will never change. Hisec is industrial superpower. Deal with it.


HS has an excess supply of free, perfect, risk free slots. It is quite literally impossible to compete with that.

If the result of various industry changes is that Nullsec industry is harder or more risky than HS, but pays better, BINGO, mission accomplished.


I agree. And if you read my previous posts carefully, i support the idea that hi sec slots should be significantly more expensive as those in low/null. And that sov outposts should be superior to hisec stations.

My reaction is mainly against the complains that hisec industry is much easier in logistic and haul than in null. Which cannot be changed as far as hisec is well supplied EVE trade hub.


I'm not aware of any suggestion that it should be, only that it be taken into account when the balancing calculations are made.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Dave Stark
#371 - 2014-01-12 09:05:43 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
blabla4711 wrote:


And why are you posting here? Most eve players dont play in nullsec. Most eve players dont care about your sandbox. Most eve players dont give a rats arse what nullsec does. Most eve players dont even read here let alone post.

So why do you pretend YOU speak on their behalf and have nerdrage about THEIR sandbox?


Tell me, why should I and everyone else in null sec be forced to build in empire space rather than in our null sec empires?


Choices have consequences.

If a miner chooses not to tank their hull or chooses to mine AFK, those choices have consequences.

If a player chooses to live in nullsec, having full knowledge of the challenges that choosing that lifestyle presents, those choices have consequences.

The idea that you are being forced to do anything is no less victimizing than miners losing their **** about gankers. The difference here is that you don't feel that you should have to HTFU?


just because choices have consequences doesn't mean we can ignore balance issues.
blabla4711
Doomheim
#372 - 2014-01-12 09:10:16 UTC  |  Edited by: blabla4711
Dave Stark wrote:


just because choices have consequences doesn't mean we can ignore balance issues.


What balance? That 11% of the playerbase, some of them entering the forum full of tears, control a vast amount of systems which MAYBE have less prod-slots systemwise than the tiny number of hs-systems in comparison which have slightly more systemwise?

Get serious ....
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#373 - 2014-01-12 09:12:41 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:


Choices have consequences.

If a miner chooses not to tank their hull or chooses to mine AFK, those choices have consequences.

If a player chooses to live in nullsec, having full knowledge of the challenges that choosing that lifestyle presents, those choices have consequences.

The idea that you are being forced to do anything is no less victimizing than miners losing their **** about gankers. The difference here is that you don't feel that you should have to HTFU?


The difference is that miners get to mine in high sec if they tank or not. I only have the option of going to high sec because it is impossible to compete if I go to null. I am willing to take the added risks and time to go live in null but right now there is no way even compete with high sec let alone earn more for that added risk.
Dave Stark
#374 - 2014-01-12 09:16:16 UTC
blabla4711 wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


just because choices have consequences doesn't mean we can ignore balance issues.


What balance? That 11% of the playerbase, some of them entering the forum full of tears, control a vast amount of systems which MAYBE have less prod-slots systemwise than the tiny number of hs-systems in comparison which have slightly more systemwise?

Get serious ....


if only 11% of players live there, that quite obviously suggests that there are very few reasons to go and live there, which is a balance issue.
It's not about the number of production slots, it's about the activity as a whole.
blabla4711
Doomheim
#375 - 2014-01-12 09:21:03 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

The difference is that miners get to mine in high sec if they tank or not. I only have the option of going to high sec because it is impossible to compete if I go to null. I am willing to take the added risks and time to go live in null but right now there is no way even compete with high sec let alone earn more for that added risk.


Ah ... the "myth" about "added risk" again ... still the usual lies, hu?

I already brought the example the farming moongoo afk for years in a broken implementation ... care to show me techmoons in hs? No? You dont "earn" more already?

Added risk? Where? in empty systems round the clock?

Nullsec has already the potential to "earn" more for added risk. But you and persons like you loves to cry in here because they have to do it somewhat different than hs. Youre the "pubbies" of nullsec who cry, lie and dance in here like the highsec pubbies you love to babble about.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#376 - 2014-01-12 09:26:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Kimmi Chan
baltec1 wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:


Choices have consequences.

If a miner chooses not to tank their hull or chooses to mine AFK, those choices have consequences.

If a player chooses to live in nullsec, having full knowledge of the challenges that choosing that lifestyle presents, those choices have consequences.

The idea that you are being forced to do anything is no less victimizing than miners losing their **** about gankers. The difference here is that you don't feel that you should have to HTFU?


The difference is that miners get to mine in high sec if they tank or not. I only have the option of going to high sec because it is impossible to compete if I go to null. I am willing to take the added risks and time to go live in null but right now there is no way even compete with high sec let alone earn more for that added risk.


I point you to the highlighted text in your quote. The defeatism is truly counterproductive.

I am by no means the most knowledgeable person in game. That being said, can it be said that W-Space is as profitable as it is because they have something that no other space has? Sleeper tech?

Is there any resource or technology that Null has that is not being utilized but is instead being carted up to HS, via a logistical nightmare, to be sold for ISK?

How is it that Null is banging their fists on the table and WH denizens just do their thing without a care for what is happening here? Is W-space any less of a challenge?

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
blabla4711
Doomheim
#377 - 2014-01-12 09:26:45 UTC  |  Edited by: blabla4711
Dave Stark wrote:
blabla4711 wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


just because choices have consequences doesn't mean we can ignore balance issues.


What balance? That 11% of the playerbase, some of them entering the forum full of tears, control a vast amount of systems which MAYBE have less prod-slots systemwise than the tiny number of hs-systems in comparison which have slightly more systemwise?

Get serious ....


if only 11% of players live there, that quite obviously suggests that there are very few reasons to go and live there, which is a balance issue.
It's not about the number of production slots, it's about the activity as a whole.


Well ... maybe 89% of the playerbase of eve dont want the way how to play their sandbox dictated by the 11%?

Do we now get back to the "thesis" that the 89% play eve wrong and the 11% play the game right? Remember? Sandbox.
Dave Stark
#378 - 2014-01-12 09:30:08 UTC
blabla4711 wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
blabla4711 wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


just because choices have consequences doesn't mean we can ignore balance issues.


What balance? That 11% of the playerbase, some of them entering the forum full of tears, control a vast amount of systems which MAYBE have less prod-slots systemwise than the tiny number of hs-systems in comparison which have slightly more systemwise?

Get serious ....


if only 11% of players live there, that quite obviously suggests that there are very few reasons to go and live there, which is a balance issue.
It's not about the number of production slots, it's about the activity as a whole.


Well ... maybe 89% of the playerbase of eve dont want the way how to play their sandbox dictated by the 11%?

Do we now get to the point that the 89% play eve wrong and the 11% play the game right? Remember? Sandbox.


the topic; please stay on it.
blabla4711
Doomheim
#379 - 2014-01-12 09:33:36 UTC  |  Edited by: blabla4711
Dave Stark wrote:

the topic; please stay on it.


What was the topic again? Ah, yes. Nerf HiSec (89%) because they dont care about my playstyle (11%) but i cry to the forums about theirs.

Right on spot.
Serene Repose
#380 - 2014-01-12 09:33:37 UTC
Ummm. What was the question, again?

We must accommodate the idiocracy.