These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#2601 - 2014-02-07 01:17:34 UTC
Basil Pupkin wrote:
Those deaths are NOT easy to avoid. Avoiding those deaths require actual survival tactics, while all you need to do in null is yell "neutral on local, dock up" to dock all your bots for instant safety.


Actually it is quite easy to avoid being ganked in highsec. However, as for your statement about the difference of nullsec, you aren't comparing the same thing.

In highsec you are talking about hauling cargo and being ganked on a gate. But for null you are talking about watching local and dscan and docking up before ever facing a ship that wants to kill you.

The correct comparison would be:

1. hauling through highsec versus hauling through nullsec
2. watching dscan and local in highsec with gankers on your watchlist, versus watching dscan and local in nullsec with an appropriate watchlist.

In the case of #1, if you really think hauling through highsec is more risky than slow-boat hauling through nullsec (or lowsec), then you need to do more of both to see that isn't correct.

In relation to #2, there's no difference at all.

Quote:
People die not because they trip and break their neck, but because they're being genocided by an ever-growing force of no-risk pussies calling themselves pvpers, which are non-existent in low and null, where people are allowed to preemptively remove them from grid for good.


Aside from the same apples-oranges comparison, I agree with you to an extent. However, highsec haulers taking even simple precautions like limiting the amount they haul, mwd-cloak warping, tanking their vessels and not autopiloting make themselves much harder to gank.

Quote:
b) Money-making in nullsec is safe. Money-making in hisec is 20% less safe than a warzone in nullsec.


Come visit Syndicate and you'll see that even npc null is not safe for ISK generation. It only becomes safer when good survival skills are used.
Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#2602 - 2014-02-07 01:23:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Basil Pupkin
Your Dad Naked wrote:

Letters are yours.

a) First things first, you can web-warp your freighter. Hyena/Rapier can web-warp a freighter instantly; it is physically impossible for the bumper to get to your freighter in time as long as you do not screw up, and it's very hard to screw up. They can't even scan you in time, so they aren't even sure if you have anything valuable. Freighters in hi-sec are borderline ungankable if you know what you're doing, especially if you use a well-tanked Rapier that cannot be blapped off grid by a gank Tornado.
Beyond that, it's all about weighing the costs of what it takes to kill your freighter. 25 Catalysts can safely guarantee a gank if T2 fitted. Assume it costs 250mil ISK minimum, therefore. With 50% drops, the minimum freighter value to draw even over time is 500mil ISK. Assuming those Catalysts are just 2 multiboxing pilots, they will be looking at a minimum of 100mil ISK profit for the time and risk of ganking the freighter. Thus you will rarely see a freighter with less than 700mil ISK cargo ganked. In the past 4 months, I have not seen it happen (via killboards) on my 11-jump Jita trade route. This is also assuming Catalysts. Most freighter ganks are done by Talos and Brutix. If we do the math again, we'll find the minimum cargo for that is nearly 2bil ISK.

b) I can fit my Nereus to tank 48,000 omni EHP. Even with EM damage, it would take four Vexors to gank me. Assuming T1 fit this time (as it's more common), that's 80mil ISK in hull losses. 160mil ISK to draw even. Thus ~250mil ISK cargo value to be worth the time. Moving to a blockade runner, they now need 6 Vexors. Thus ~350mil ISK cargo value to be worth the time.
It gets better though: Orca. You can fit it for EHP, topping it out at 286,000 EHP. If we break down the math again, we'll find the minimum cargo value is close to 1bil ISK to be worth ganking by Catalysts. Talos/Brutix ganking an Orca need a minimum cargo value of nearly 3bil ISK to be worth the time.
Lastly, all haulers (including the Orca!) can do the cloak/MWD with the right setup. For the Orca, it has to be perfect. While I'm sure cloak/MWDers haulers have been caught before, it is extremely hard to do so and very risky (ISK) as you likely will not know what is in their cargo.

c) The MTU ganking is quite cheap and needs to be fixed. Mission hub bumping? If at undock, dock up again. If at redock, create a docking bookmark so you're in range every time. Flying T2 you don't have to do this as no one will gank you really... flying deadspace/officer, it's always best to be super safe.


a) Which is why freighters aren't a primary gank target. RISK 0,5%, unacceptable to a ganker.
Now, what you describe is an actual survival tactic, which is about 10 times more effort than null safety takes.
Talos gank fleet costs less than 500m. You're looking at profits for every freighter about 1b ISK freight. A fill of Pyerite is 1.5 times that. Damn, people should probably stop hauling pyerite around! Since you're going to try to convince me to haul less pyerite like a true non-bright ganker you are, I must remind you that it is 2nd lowest mineral on the table, and should I need to haul Nocxium, uner 1b is just a bit more than 10000m3, and I wonder what are you going to do about that. Suggestions to do over 9000 runs on a T2 hauler don't really sound well.
Orca in EHP fit is probably the safest option, but it is slower than a freighter in it, and carries 10% of freighter capacity, so still not really viable option for mid-tier minerals, since trips take so damn long.

b) Ganking on Vexors... what's next, Ventures? 5000m3 of Nocxium is 350m ISK, which makes your Nereus worth even at the lowest possible cargo capacity, and Nocxium isn't the biggest possible ISK/m3 cargo.
Last time I checked, Orca couldn't do cloack mwd. Orca was unable to fit MWD without pg upgrades, which kinda defeated the purpose, since without agility upgrades taking the same low/rig slots, it won't warp in time even with MWD. Might need to recheck.

c) Docking up again can't be done in session timer, and isn't always successful. At redock, no, doesn't happen. You're only safe in T2 because someone else is bling, once we run out of bling, T2 will burn just as well. Not to mention T2 is 10% to 25% less profitable to begin with, unless in a drone boat, in which case it's almost always range tank, which means no tank, which makes you easy target.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.
stoicfaux
#2603 - 2014-02-07 01:28:08 UTC  |  Edited by: stoicfaux
An Idea for the Community:

Seeing as how a single threaded, 100+ page discussion is somewhat difficult to read (i.e. it's inherently unorganized) would it make sense to post the pros/cons for nerfing high-sec using some kind of collaborative program, like, I don't know, maybe GoogleDocs?

Someone(tm) could create a googledoc spreadsheet, make it editable by anyone with the link, and let trust people to update the pros/cons in a constructive manner that everyone can reference?

It might help to avoid repeated arguments and might allow people who are interested in the subject matter to avoid some of the less-than-relevant posts in the thread.


edit: Here's the doc: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvCLlTV8bSxNdDgzemFhZ09hb3B1bnhGdVB5bFJ3eGc&usp=sharing#gid=0

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#2604 - 2014-02-07 02:06:36 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Basil Pupkin wrote:
Those deaths are NOT easy to avoid. Avoiding those deaths require actual survival tactics, while all you need to do in null is yell "neutral on local, dock up" to dock all your bots for instant safety.


Actually it is quite easy to avoid being ganked in highsec. However, as for your statement about the difference of nullsec, you aren't comparing the same thing.

In highsec you are talking about hauling cargo and being ganked on a gate. But for null you are talking about watching local and dscan and docking up before ever facing a ship that wants to kill you.

The correct comparison would be:

1. hauling through highsec versus hauling through nullsec
2. watching dscan and local in highsec with gankers on your watchlist, versus watching dscan and local in nullsec with an appropriate watchlist.

In the case of #1, if you really think hauling through highsec is more risky than slow-boat hauling through nullsec (or lowsec), then you need to do more of both to see that isn't correct.

In relation to #2, there's no difference at all.

Quote:
People die not because they trip and break their neck, but because they're being genocided by an ever-growing force of no-risk pussies calling themselves pvpers, which are non-existent in low and null, where people are allowed to preemptively remove them from grid for good.


Aside from the same apples-oranges comparison, I agree with you to an extent. However, highsec haulers taking even simple precautions like limiting the amount they haul, mwd-cloak warping, tanking their vessels and not autopiloting make themselves much harder to gank.

Quote:
b) Money-making in nullsec is safe. Money-making in hisec is 20% less safe than a warzone in nullsec.


Come visit Syndicate and you'll see that even npc null is not safe for ISK generation. It only becomes safer when good survival skills are used.


1. Hauling in nullsec is uber-safe and doesn't suffer from ship travel speed limitations, because it doesn't require hauler to use gates. At worst, it would be cyno alt. Normally, something super lame like jump bridges.
Freighters and Orcas can't mwd cloack. Others can't haul and/or tank half as much.
Limiting works with one things and unacceptable with others.

2. Agreement taken, however, proposed counter-gank measures have very limited efficiency.

3. "Even npc null", bah. Blue donut, nuff said. npc null is basically a lowsec from my point of view.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.
stoicfaux
#2605 - 2014-02-07 02:08:17 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
An Idea for the Community:

Seeing as how a single threaded, 100+ page discussion is somewhat difficult to read (i.e. it's inherently unorganized) would it make sense to post the pros/cons for nerfing high-sec using some kind of collaborative program, like, I don't know, maybe GoogleDocs?

Someone(tm) could create a googledoc spreadsheet, make it editable by anyone with the link, and let trust people to update the pros/cons in a constructive manner that everyone can reference?

It might help to avoid repeated arguments and might allow people who are interested in the subject matter to avoid some of the less-than-relevant posts in the thread.



Here's the googledoc. Formatting/structure is a bit rough because I couldn't find an existing spreadsheet template useful for tracking talking points in an iterative Prisoners-armed-with-grenades-locked-in-an-8x8-room dilemma scenario

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvCLlTV8bSxNdDgzemFhZ09hb3B1bnhGdVB5bFJ3eGc&usp=sharing

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#2606 - 2014-02-07 02:27:33 UTC
Basil Pupkin wrote:
1. Hauling in nullsec is uber-safe and doesn't suffer from ship travel speed limitations, because it doesn't require hauler to use gates. At worst, it would be cyno alt. Normally, something super lame like jump bridges.
Freighters and Orcas can't mwd cloack. Others can't haul and/or tank half as much.
Limiting works with one things and unacceptable with others.


Sure on the cyno aspect. Totally agree.

However that can't be done on 1 account. A minimum of 2 are required and for fast 2-way travel, 3 are required.

In which case if we apply a similar approach to highsec, then you could move with the assistance of either a scout or escort (for 2 accounts), or both a scout and an escort for 3 accounts. That would be equivalent to using a cyno in null/low.

Quote:
2. Agreement taken, however, proposed counter-gank measures have very limited efficiency.


No problem. They are limited and if everyone did it, then gankers would work out a way to beat it (nature of the beast). So back to the equivalent of a cyno jump, using multiple accounts as is required in low/null.

Quote:
3. "Even npc null", bah. Blue donut, nuff said. npc null is basically a lowsec from my point of view.


So does that make it safer than highsec? I kind of miss your implication in that. I think your saying that npc null is more dangerous than sov null, but not sure.
Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#2607 - 2014-02-07 02:52:26 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:


Here's the googledoc. Formatting/structure is a bit rough because I couldn't find an existing spreadsheet template useful for tracking talking points in an iterative Prisoners-armed-with-grenades-locked-in-an-8x8-room dilemma scenario

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvCLlTV8bSxNdDgzemFhZ09hb3B1bnhGdVB5bFJ3eGc&usp=sharing



Getting vandalized as we speak.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#2608 - 2014-02-07 03:03:28 UTC
Basil Pupkin wrote:
a) Which is why freighters aren't a primary gank target. RISK 0,5%, unacceptable to a ganker.


Miniluv would like a word with you.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#2609 - 2014-02-07 03:16:31 UTC
Basil Pupkin wrote:
So, from the latest dev blog we learn the stunning truth:

At least 3 popular ganking systems on the Jita route (Uedama, Madirmili, Niarja) had more "peeveepee" in them than tear-stained HED-GP.

And the popular mission hubs like Osmon beat them all.

Can you nerf hisec any further? I think no - it is a lot less safe than null as it is, and doing activities goons cry about is about 20% more dangerous than strolling around in HED-GP in NPC corp account.

Source: http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/65749/1/destruction2013.png


Congrats for reading it wrong lol. Most of the destruction still happens outside of high sec despite high sec having the bulk of the games character population. That means high sec space as a whole is safer than all other space in eve per capita.

But don't let facts deflect you, no one else in high sec will...
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#2610 - 2014-02-07 03:25:03 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:


Congrats for reading it wrong lol. Most of the destruction still happens outside of high sec despite high sec having the bulk of the games character population. That means high sec space as a whole is safer than all other space in eve per capita.

But don't let facts deflect you, no one else in high sec will...



One would hope that High sec space as a whole is safer than other space per capita..... That's kinda the point of high sec space. So.... Working as intended.
Does show that a fair amount of destruction does happen in High Sec though. It's not 95% null causing destruction.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#2611 - 2014-02-07 05:03:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Benny Ohu
e: looks like all context for this post was deleted so here's a picture of a totally rad dog instead
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#2612 - 2014-02-07 05:22:22 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:


Congrats for reading it wrong lol. Most of the destruction still happens outside of high sec despite high sec having the bulk of the games character population. That means high sec space as a whole is safer than all other space in eve per capita.

But don't let facts deflect you, no one else in high sec will...



One would hope that High sec space as a whole is safer than other space per capita..... That's kinda the point of high sec space. So.... Working as intended.
Does show that a fair amount of destruction does happen in High Sec though. It's not 95% null causing destruction.


I notice you didn't say that to the person I was replying to. Or did you not notice the whole "high sec is more dangerous" part.


Null has 10 or so % of the character population. The graph shows 3 things:

Null sec is more dangerous (that graph is proof that the oft repeated lie that null is safer is just that, a lie). We already knew that from the 2011 devblog that demonstrated how little pvp happened in high sec but of course the high sec status quo defense league dismmised that as old news.

and

Since destuction drives the EVE economy, null (and low and WH) residents are doing more than their fair share in keeping up the demand that drives the economy, while high sec (where the vast majority of EVE online characters reside) isn't coming any where near pulling it's own weight

and

Industry outside of high sec is futile. The combination of easy travel (jump engines) and the damn near free and hugh capacity of high sec means it's stupid to do anything else but buy stuff in empire and ship it down.

It doesn't seem like CCP is serious about wanting people to be able to live in null sec. The current situation is so broken null is about nothing more than gudfights and rental opportunities.
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#2613 - 2014-02-07 05:52:20 UTC  |  Edited by: PotatoOverdose
I tried reading this thread from the beginning. I tried reading it from the middle. I tried reading it from the end.

Holy **** this thread is a train wreck.

If you guys honestly believe this thread will sway CCP's (or anyone else's) opinion, well.....I do have an amarr-jita jump bridge for sale. Cool
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#2614 - 2014-02-07 06:23:49 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:


I notice you didn't say that to the person I was replying to. Or did you not notice the whole "high sec is more dangerous" part.


Null has 10 or so % of the character population. The graph shows 3 things:

Null sec is more dangerous (that graph is proof that the oft repeated lie that null is safer is just that, a lie). We already knew that from the 2011 devblog that demonstrated how little pvp happened in high sec but of course the high sec status quo defense league dismmised that as old news.

and

Since destuction drives the EVE economy, null (and low and WH) residents are doing more than their fair share in keeping up the demand that drives the economy, while high sec (where the vast majority of EVE online characters reside) isn't coming any where near pulling it's own weight

and

Industry outside of high sec is futile. The combination of easy travel (jump engines) and the damn near free and hugh capacity of high sec means it's stupid to do anything else but buy stuff in empire and ship it down.

It doesn't seem like CCP is serious about wanting people to be able to live in null sec. The current situation is so broken null is about nothing more than gudfights and rental opportunities.

Other than you know, all the changes they have made to make Null much easier to live in that the game hasn't fully adjusted to yet. Though Market hubs will never exist in Null because of NBSI. And jump drives out of market hubs do make logistics simpler (Not not always cheaper) than building locally.

And as for destruction, High sec is doing fine. High sec is always going to have less destruction in it, that's working as intended. And since creating is easier when there is less destruction, creating will therefore be naturally easier in High as a result of less destruction. But there is plenty of destruction occurring in high. Three trillion isk in Osmon alone for example. Sure, it's a mission hub, but I'm betting that's actually a significant percentage of the income from Osmon that goes purely to replacing losses.

As for Tippia, stop talking rubbish. You know people are biased, and it's been explained dozens of times in this thread why various peoples testing methodologies have been biased, misleading or flat out terrible. Including in response to you several times. You are just shouting Nahnahnah loudly and hoping they give up.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#2615 - 2014-02-07 06:27:07 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
As for Tippia, stop talking rubbish. You know people are biased, and it's been explained dozens of times in this thread why various peoples testing methodologies have been biased, misleading or flat out terrible. Including in response to you several times.
…which should make it easy for him to answer the question, and yet he can't without taking the all-fallacy route.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#2616 - 2014-02-07 11:47:19 UTC
I have removed a lot of rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.
Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The rules:
2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.

4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

21. Posting regarding RMT (Real Money Trading) is prohibited.

Posts discussing, linking to, or advertising RMT, including but not limited to the sale of in game items, assets, currency, characters or game accounts for real life money are strictly prohibited.

22. Post constructively.

Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting.

26. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued.

34. Posting of kill reports outside of the Crime & Punishment forum channel is prohibited.

More often than not, posts of this nature are made with inflammatory intent and are designed to promote trolling and flaming. Therefore, the posting of links to kill reports from any third party site, or the direct copy-pasting of kill reports from in game is prohibited on all forum channels of the EVE Online Forums, with the exception of the Crime & Punishment Channel.
Specific rules regarding the omission of pilot names apply in this instance. Further details can be found in the rules stickies in the Crime & Punishment forum channel.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Thirtythousand
#2617 - 2014-02-07 12:05:51 UTC
thing i find funny, looking at that chart up top there, jita was 1.2 trillion isk less in losses then the most expensive battle ever in eve history. jita ALONE. not including orther mission/trade hubs. yes high sec is safer.

Support the updating of rookie ships! Join the discussion https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4222786#post4222786
embrel
BamBam Inc.
#2618 - 2014-02-07 12:31:32 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

Null sec is more dangerous (that graph is proof that the oft repeated lie that null is safer is just that, a lie). We already knew that from the 2011 devblog that demonstrated how little pvp happened in high sec but of course the high sec status quo defense league dismmised that as old news.


The interpretation regarding how dangerous it is cannot be made based on ISK numbers. While I tend to agree that Null is not safer, the ISK value shows nothing.

e.g. how many FW-frigs and cruisers need to be killed in order to have the same value as 1 Titan?

it's not ISK-value but number of kills that defines how dangerous an area is.
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#2619 - 2014-02-07 13:14:32 UTC  |  Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Jenn aSide wrote:
Since destuction drives the EVE economy, null (and low and WH) residents are doing more than their fair share in keeping up the demand that drives the economy, while high sec (where the vast majority of EVE online characters reside) isn't coming any where near pulling it's own weight

Jenn, people aren't playing a game to do "their fair share" or "pull their own weight". This ISN'T a job! I don't play this game to work for anyone. I play this game to have fun. Stop accusing people of not pulling their weight as if this is some sort of task. Or rather, if you insist in thinking of them as free loaders or whatever, go right ahead. But realize it is no where to be found in the EULA that one must "pull their own weight" to play and this is something you've constructed on your own.

We've had this discussion before. If people rather build than destruct you are no one to tell them they're not pulling their weight or doing it wrong. So please stop this nonsense. THIS IS NOT A JOB!

This thing you have for hi sec and carebears, this disdain and feeling of superiority, is getting ridiculous.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2620 - 2014-02-07 13:24:25 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Since destuction drives the EVE economy, null (and low and WH) residents are doing more than their fair share in keeping up the demand that drives the economy, while high sec (where the vast majority of EVE online characters reside) isn't coming any where near pulling it's own weight

Jenn, people aren't playing a game to do "their fair share" or "pull their own weight". This ISN'T a job! I don't play this game to work for anyone. I play this game to have fun. Stop accusing people of not pulling their weight as if this is some sort of task. Or rather, if you insist in thinking of them as free loaders or whatever, go right ahead. But realize it is no where to be found in the EULA that one must "pull their own weight" to play and this is something you've constructed on your own.

We've had this discussion before. If people rather build than destruct you are no one to tell them they're not pulling their weight or doing it wrong. So please stop this nonsense. THIS IS NOT A JOB!

This thing you have for hi sec and carebears, this disdain and feeling of superiority, is getting ridiculous.



Except her point is still right. High sec does not drive the economy because not enough stuff are lost there. Anytime lots of stuff are lost in high sec, it's because some idiot overloaded his freighter.