Crime & Punishment

Not when it is HIS plataform which views the game as a unidimensional space where everyone wants or cares about only one thing.

You changing the game from what it is to something which is directed to ONE kind of people, oblivious to other kinds of people is by definition favoring such fraction.

It is precisely what I think about what he states. While most PVP, Griefplayers and general non manager only or traders all agree with him, the people to which corporations are made for and the gameplay they allow are all expressing concerns about it.

When you present something you dont want to be criticized for, you dont deserve to take part of a body which the sole function is to represent someone else you dont agree with.

This is crime and punishment section. There is a place for you to express CSM political views where the rules are made for that puporse. Here you are just another poster and I exercise my right to disagree with you or any other poster. I never made an detrimental or ofensive attempt and all I say is consistent with argument on ideas.

Ok. Lets try the one sentence low key english tone. Avoiding what I learned from other sources than CAE.

- Basically the idea that players HAVE to move from hisec is entirely an idea that priviledge those who like the kind of gameplay in low and null. It is not only RISK involved, as risk you take anywhere. I had customers blown up at the undock on rookie systems. Jita is not even .6. Hisec, Low and Null are DIFFERENT gamplay zones. Some people do not remain in Hisec because they dont want to face other players, they remain there because it is like living of a SOV from a friend you trust. Well, the empire is a friend we trust, and to force us to go to low or null is just forcing us to go someone else's which is usually not our friend, and someone who is already with friends there. In other words, you forcing all players to be the infantry ones, by making you choose to lose even more of eve you are already losing because you may not be the kind of player, the kind of person, or the right nationality to get along with people in the null or low. In empire Space, Amarr for example, care for my standings towards amarr, not if I am from X or Y country, believes in X or Y filosophy or just plain simple, dont care if I like them personally or not. That is what many people around here do not understand with this hisec thing. Hisec is like living in null in the space of an alliance trusting you.

- The basic idea of making NPC corps unatractive for players after a while is both bad for said players, and bad for the ones running the player corps. NPC corps follow the same pattern. You dont remain in an NPC corp only by fear of wardec. Sometimes, and specially people who spend a lot of time in MMOs and Internet in general, people dont like the decisions of other people. There is a lot of signs for that. People stop doing PI just because they are paying tax, even if it is less tax, to a player. They dont want to pay for another person to have oportunity to experience a gameplay that by definition that person is depriving you from. People dont want to pay for being able to do their things for a player. So they remain in a NPC corp. People dont want to be subject of rules they dont agree upon, and as most corps in EVE use the same crap kind of megalomaniac douchebaggery over players who arent into combat or "competitive PVE", they just remain in NPC corps. Wardec for many may be the last thing they are thinking of when remaining in an NPC corp.

- The way you have to manage corps and trade in EVE is preciselly the way you use Comex software, it is the way it is done, and EVe may have a little over 10 years, but comex has more than 100, and it is not the way it is for no reason. It is made by people who knows what they are doing to people who knows what they are doing. The same way combat gameplay is not tweaked so number crunchers will thrive, so trade and corporation management is not for internal control to make people stay or leave hisec. Corp management and Trade UI are made for a specific section of gameplay, it is not made to serve the interests of armed combat gameplay. Changing one for another is as useless as the other directions to get people out of hisec.

- For an almost 100% trader like myself, null and low do not represent just high risk, it represents no gameplay whatsoever. because null and low are the places where people can bargain you by fear and firepower, which is not your strenght. If you change that you wont make traders go low or null, you will just get people who like trading uninterested in the game. Even in real life trade has been well known to avoid conflict zones, and they are the sole reason for many countries to live in peace since remote ages.

The truth is: Hisec, Lowsec and Null sec are not progression, not index of player ability or anything other than 3 diferent environments with their own possible and common interactions. You dont need to take people away from hisec because it is some sort of natural way to evolve.

I myself see hisec as it would be a nice place to enhance oportunity of gameplay unique to hisec, as the hisec is sov of the empires and there the rules are theirs. I understand that restrictions apply, but making it so we move from there to player mob owned systems so "they have more people to play with" is as I said: "I want you to play the way I want because you have to like what I like".

You want to make those in high-sec easier targets whilst at the same time reducing their income.


If you achieve that then most would just leave the game.

I keep hearing risk/reward, but what is risk/reward in this game as risk isn't a constant.

If you want risk/reward to be more equal, then you would have to make all regions null, but even then the larger corps/alliances will have a degree of safety. The old saying - safety in numbers.



Veterans choosing to stay in high-sec stay there for a reason, probably partially because it's safe in NPC corps, except against suicide gankers and partially for the isk. There's nothing you can do to force them into low-sec or null, if they don't want to be there. If you try, all they will do is leave the game. The only ones you may force to go to low-sec or null are the alts of those that are already in low-sec and null. Even some of those alts are probably in high-sec just to take a break from low-sec or null instead of playing/doing something else. Even the op is sayings he's had enough of null.

Edit:

Re: bolded part

People keep making this argument based on no evidence. Of course there is some small percentage of players that will never leave highsec, but there are a much larger number of players who are there because it offers the best balance of risk vs. reward.

If you made all PvE in lowsec say play 10 times the amount it does now, do you not think that many players would move there? There are terrible downsides for the economy for that proposal so I am not advocating it, but I am sure there would be a mass migration of players out of highsec.

Many, of if not the majority of highsec characters are alts of players who live in, or are comfortable living in low/null/WH space. If you dangled them enough of a carrot (or nerfed highsec into the ground), why would they not move their PvE/Industry activities back to those spaces?

This really isn't the place for this discussion, so I will leave it there and let Bronson comment on this issue if he so desires.

And yet people do run missions in low-sec, even with the rewards and safety currently being better in highsec.

So you agree that players do currently run missions in lowsec, which makes nonsense of your claim that no-one will do it if the risk / reward imbalance is corrected? Excellent.

Then you shouldn't use sweeping generalisations. If your revised claim is that there are people who have always lived in highsec that wouldn't give lowsec / nullsec / wormholes a try as a result of risk and reward being fixed, you're still wrong.



I was talking about people who run level 5 missions.

I don't do missions, only missions I would be interested in are pirate missions and that's more for the rep. and those tend to be more in null.

Most solo missions in high-sec. Can level 5s even be soloed and what would be the cost of a ship and fittings that could actually solo a level 5?

Make that "and" an "or" and you about have it right.

You would only become easier targets if you joined a player corp and/or left the highest security systems*.

You would only have your income reduced if you stayed in an NPC corp and/or stayed in the highest security systems*.


Either or, not both. You seem to think that I want to nerf hisec outright, and that couldn't be further from the truth.


*Note: I'm still talking hisec here. 0.5s/0.6s vs 0.9s/1.0s.



EDIT: Would you be less put off by proposals if, instead of including a set of taxes on NPC corps, I focused entirely on buffing hisec corps? I laid out something here but I'm still fleshing it out.


Also, you've had a lot to say about my ideas. Do you have any of your own? I'd love to hear them.