EVE General Discussion

There is zero risk in any PvE activity that is done correctly.

yeah but the activity itself provides 0 risk, it's the bits of the game that aren't the mission you're running that provide any risk.

so they're correct when they say that missions involve no risk.

travelling in 0.0 in T1 industrial full of PLEXes won't kill you by itself

So they correct when they say that travelling in 0.0 is 100% safe?

the reason for the loot changes was to force a change away from 425 rail guns being used to refine back into mins.
thank all who used that exsploit for these loot refine changes.
I'm still waiting for gameplay improvements to highsec also.
the last few have been **** storms and there's more coming.

There will never be any patch that really focuses on highsec gameplay because there is pretty much no gameplay that is specific to highsec. Crimewatch 2.0 is as close as it get since it's really the only unique part.

Everything else will be general gameplay improvements that affect highsec as well as other parts of space. Things like improved exploration, ship balancing, POCOs, deployables, and the upcoming industry improvements.

sure, wildly out of context comment is wildly out of context but i'll say yes anyway because why not.

but jumping gate to gate has 0 reward, unlike missions.

It would seem that the expansion will achieve the end of making Null, nominally, more profitable in just about all aspects of the game.

Im ok with that.

People can still profit in high-sec just fine. You can still play the game just fine in ones chosen sector.
Profits may not be nominally as high, but that is inline with the reduced risk insured by NPC control.
Its a fair trade, in that regard.

Nonetheless, hopefully, thereafter, once that is out of the way, proper attention can be applied to fixing Null risks to match those rewards.

Null is too stable atm. Yes, in part, due to the efforts of players to have made it so.
But that does not contravene or trump that Null Sov and security mechanics need revising.
Everyone has to be prepared to accept some sacrifices, if it is for the good of the game, overall.

I agree it i was and is necessary to increase all nominal profit in Null above that of high.
This expansion largely does that, in those elements that remained.

But that does not contravene the Sov and security problems in Null which have resulted, time and time again, in a blue doughnut.
Risk can only be said to be at the right standard, once conflict and risk is properly present in Null, to the result that there is never again a blue doughnut.

This is about game mechanics, not personal preference or privilege.

Now that Null has its nominal profits increased above those of High, it will be time to finally bite the bullet and ensure with subsequent changes that Null is never, ever, again secured by a blue doughnut.

Its existance is a constant indicator and proof, that the mechanics of Null, are not enforcing the risk they should be.

No matter what you change, unless you force inherent risk through sandbox breaking mechanics, people will always find ways of working together to overcome risk, and so the "blue doughnut" will continue to form. Then when you look at it the other way, high sec players not only can work alone, but can actually gain rewards while alt tabbed. There's a reason most null sec players have high sec alts, it's because the risk and effort free isk is better than risk/reward ratio in null.

Completely impossible. There's no way to "enforce risk" without mechanically constraining the game, which turns EVE from a sandbox game into every other MMO. What you are talking about is forcing people to not work together to mitigate risk.

And even if they did decide to put a sledgehammer to the whole idea behind EVE and force people into splitting up, people would still work outside of the game to find ways to work together. If null gained so much inherent mechanical risk that it was impossible to mitigate, we'd just move into low and boot everyone out. Null would pretty much be dead at that point, since if it is too risky for a well organised group to survive, small groups and solo players would have no chance.

As usual, the whole idea breaks down to small groups of players saying "I don't like it that a large group or organised players outperforms me, force them to change".

Lucas doesnt get that Null Sov and risk mechanics are broken, which is what results in a blue doughnut.

The very existance of the doughnut, is proof positive of that fact.

The inherent false attitude of entitlement in his posts, is no different, whatsoever, from those of the worst high-sec carebear whiners.