These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 is the real problem people have with High Sec?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#401 - 2012-10-20 19:13:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Cazador 64 wrote:
Yup and I've never said HI sec should be more profitable ever..
Give me one example of where I said that Hi sec needs to pay out more then LOW/Null and I will give all my stuff away on all my accounts and delete my characters.

The fix to this issue is not nerfing or removing HI SEC

And except for one person who had suggested buffing NULL everyone else is crying for HI SEC nerfs.

Actually, the solution is two-fold. First, you have to buff null so there's even a modicum of point in trying to be an industrialist in null. Until this is done, people will keep on manufacturing in hisec and shipping to nullsec. Second, chances are that you'll have to see some increases in hisec manufacturing costs (when I can manufacture a whole maelstrom for less than 3k isk, it's dirt cheap), and possibly increase the sales taxes as well.

Edit: I'm ambivalent to the whole "be able to install agents in nullsec", but I'm not going to be against it either, if people would rather do that than anoms or ratting. vOv

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Cazador 64
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#402 - 2012-10-20 19:29:35 UTC
Darth Khasei wrote:
Cazador 64 wrote:
Yup and I've never said HI sec should be more profitable ever..
Give me one example of where I said that Hi sec needs to pay out more then LOW/Null and I will give all my stuff away on all my accounts and delete my characters.

The fix to this issue is not nerfing or removing HI SEC
And except for one person who had suggested buffing NULL everyone else is crying for HI SEC nerfs.

Respect. Cool

Simmer down mate, I am not here to argue or fight with you or anyone else. All I said was Natsett Amuinn's idea HAS merit and deserves it's own light and not to be forgotten or buried in the argument between you two.

His suggestion is not to nerf Hi sec but to buff null sec PvE in a significant way that "might" encourage others with interest to give null sec a try.

I think that is a GREAT suggestion. YMMV.


I agree. My beef was more along the lines of how my post were taken out of context.
His idea of buffing null VS nerfing HI is about the only example of a reasonable "fix" to this "problem people have with high sec"
How ever he appears to be one of the few who want NULL to be a appealing place to live and play eve.

But my arguments still stand in that most of these people do just want to buff their KB.
It would be great to have this game more balanced, and more people need to view EVE from both his stand point but also see the legitimacy in what I've said.

Natsett just happened to be the only one who has made any response to what I have been saying.
The problem is people fail to see there is a middle ground a grey area here.
I suggest that HI sec should be a place where people can live and play and make a living.

Natsett suggest that Null should be a place where people can play and live and make a more profitable living due to the increased risk.

He hasn't called for a high sec nerf and I've never said Null shouldn't be a place to make ISK.
We have the same idea just on complete opposite ends of the spectrum.

The middle ground / grey area comes into effect where most of the people in this thread are calling for a high sec nerf
and trying to force people into low.
This will not generate a higher income in low / null it doesn't suggest any fixes to the game.
And to deny that some of these peoples agenda to do away with high sec just for more KB targets is a bit close minded.

I know plenty of people some who can't even live in high sec do to low sec standings who truly think EVE is ONLY for PVP and nothing else and if you are doing anything else you are wasting every ones time.
There sole purpose in EVE is for their KB nothing else. So please don't tell me that these people do not exist.
And that is their choice that is how they choose to play EVE.

Natsett chooses to live in Null and wants a way to make some more money and I can respect that.
Me? I love EVE how ever I do not have the available play time to live in Null / Low sec . I would love to do so
I've run into people who have pissed me off and wanted nothing more then to blow them out of the sky.

But I feel due to lack of play time I can not commit to a Null corp or Alliance and I will be unable to be of any use to them keeping their sovereignty over a system and I am not one to piggy back off the efforts of other players.
So I choose to keep playing EVE as time allows and I have every right to make a decent living in high sec.
It's not a great living I can afford my plexs for my accounts I Save enough in my wallet to replace their ships at any given time. And thats about it
Cazador 64
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#403 - 2012-10-20 19:32:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Cazador 64
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

I'm not saying you're saying anything else.

I pointed out the calling of null sec players, of which I am one, assholes, and the implication that we ONLY WANT people to shoot at. Those things are wrong, unfair, and frankly dickish of you to state.


I understand but I think you are confusing me with someone else I have never called any of the players assholes

Edit: An other Issue is we see zero support or feed back of postings by devs or GMs in these threads. While most of the postings here are trash there are a few legitimate post and ideas but they tend to never see the light of day.
You can clearly see the DEVs / GMs are active on the forums but they just appear to stay clear of the pressing issues.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#404 - 2012-10-20 19:49:32 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Cazador 64 wrote:
Yup and I've never said HI sec should be more profitable ever..
Give me one example of where I said that Hi sec needs to pay out more then LOW/Null and I will give all my stuff away on all my accounts and delete my characters.

The fix to this issue is not nerfing or removing HI SEC

And except for one person who had suggested buffing NULL everyone else is crying for HI SEC nerfs.

Actually, the solution is two-fold. First, you have to buff null so there's even a modicum of point in trying to be an industrialist in null. Until this is done, people will keep on manufacturing in hisec and shipping to nullsec. Second, chances are that you'll have to see some increases in hisec manufacturing costs (when I can manufacture a whole maelstrom for less than 3k isk, it's dirt cheap), and possibly increase the sales taxes as well.

Edit: I'm ambivalent to the whole "be able to install agents in nullsec", but I'm not going to be against it either, if people would rather do that than anoms or ratting. vOv

I agree with this as well.

More productin slots in null stations should be available to be installed, and it should never be cheaper in high sec to build.

I think that something people don't seem to get is that there is no "downside" to high sec. There is no paying for the safety of high sec; it's all benefit.

They can't JUST buff null, high has to also come with some nerfs. It doesn't have to come in the form of nerfing missions, but it can be in the form of increased taxes and higher production costs.


However, I feel obligated to point out out that building in null is much cheaper for me than high sec. My materials are cheaper, because they come from were I work so there is no export/ import cost involved, and I have access to manufacturing lines that have zero cost to build.

But then, if I'm paying nothing to build that means that someone else in the same station is paying something because there are only 5 slots with no fee and I make it a point to ensure that using them, as well as the next cheapest lines. Ultimately someone is paying for my actions.

I don't know how many it's possible to install with no cost associated with the line, 5 could be the max for all I know. I do think they should buff it if that is the case.

I also think they should limit the number of jobs that can be run in a high sec station, make the high sec builders have to spread more and actually find stations not being used. It's silly that I can go into a station a rediculous number of people building and have no trouble getting a slot.

They should also limit the amount of research and invention that can be done in high sec, and I mean drastically. Researched BPO's and T2/3 BPC should be a primary product of null sec. It would give people an incentive to actually go to null to be able to do those things.

It is simply to easy and to cheap to access these things in high sec. It needs to be harder and more expensive to produce the best items in the game, in the safest areas.

The billions of isk worth of researeched and invented BP sitting in my hanger are at risk just because that hanger is in a station that at basically any moment I could lose access to. High sec guys shouldn't get the same benefits I get with none of the risk. There's simply no benefit for most people to do what I do in null when they can usually do it cheaper in high. It shouldn't be that way.
Cazador 64
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#405 - 2012-10-20 20:04:18 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Cazador 64 wrote:
Yup and I've never said HI sec should be more profitable ever..
Give me one example of where I said that Hi sec needs to pay out more then LOW/Null and I will give all my stuff away on all my accounts and delete my characters.

The fix to this issue is not nerfing or removing HI SEC

And except for one person who had suggested buffing NULL everyone else is crying for HI SEC nerfs.

Actually, the solution is two-fold. First, you have to buff null so there's even a modicum of point in trying to be an industrialist in null. Until this is done, people will keep on manufacturing in hisec and shipping to nullsec. Second, chances are that you'll have to see some increases in hisec manufacturing costs (when I can manufacture a whole maelstrom for less than 3k isk, it's dirt cheap), and possibly increase the sales taxes as well.

Edit: I'm ambivalent to the whole "be able to install agents in nullsec", but I'm not going to be against it either, if people would rather do that than anoms or ratting. vOv

I agree with this as well.

More productin slots in null stations should be available to be installed, and it should never be cheaper in high sec to build.

I think that something people don't seem to get is that there is no "downside" to high sec. There is no paying for the safety of high sec; it's all benefit.

They can't JUST buff null, high has to also come with some nerfs. It doesn't have to come in the form of nerfing missions, but it can be in the form of increased taxes and higher production costs.


However, I feel obligated to point out out that building in null is much cheaper for me than high sec. My materials are cheaper, because they come from were I work so there is no export/ import cost involved, and I have access to manufacturing lines that have zero cost to build.

But then, if I'm paying nothing to build that means that someone else in the same station is paying something because there are only 5 slots with no fee and I make it a point to ensure that using them, as well as the next cheapest lines. Ultimately someone is paying for my actions.

I don't know how many it's possible to install with no cost associated with the line, 5 could be the max for all I know. I do think they should buff it if that is the case.

I also think they should limit the number of jobs that can be run in a high sec station, make the high sec builders have to spread more and actually find stations not being used. It's silly that I can go into a station a rediculous number of people building and have no trouble getting a slot.

They should also limit the amount of research and invention that can be done in high sec, and I mean drastically. Researched BPO's and T2/3 BPC should be a primary product of null sec. It would give people an incentive to actually go to null to be able to do those things.

It is simply to easy and to cheap to access these things in high sec. It needs to be harder and more expensive to produce the best items in the game, in the safest areas.

The billions of isk worth of researeched and invented BP sitting in my hanger are at risk just because that hanger is in a station that at basically any moment I could lose access to. High sec guys shouldn't get the same benefits I get with none of the risk. There's simply no benefit for most people to do what I do in null when they can usually do it cheaper in high. It shouldn't be that way.



I am not into indy much so some of this is hard to follow but I get the gist of it.
Not really sure of a way to implement risk here to the high sec player.
Perhaps Limit high sec manufacturing to certain things ? Increased manufacturing times? Implement some kind of higher cost to manufacture via a tax like you suggested?
Maybe something along the lines of wasting more ore while manufacturing not really sure.
I am not entirely versed in this field of play with INDY but I can see the point of the no risk and the counter needed for it.


As far as increasing risk in high sec missions that is being put into play with the smarter AI not sure how much risk it will involve but I do not see an issues with some increased risk.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#406 - 2012-10-20 20:14:16 UTC
Cazador 64 wrote:
I am not into indy much so some of this is hard to follow but I get the gist of it.
Not really sure of a way to implement risk here to the high sec player.
Perhaps Limit high sec manufacturing to certain things ? Increased manufacturing times? Implement some kind of higher cost to manufacture via a tax like you suggested?
Maybe something along the lines of wasting more ore while manufacturing not really sure.
I am not entirely versed in this field of play with INDY but I can see the point of the no risk and the counter needed for it.

Increased manufacturing times is already there, since nullsec stations can be upgraded to work quicker than hisec slots. As for limiting hisec to certain items, this is already the case, although the limits are capital ships and up. And as for wasting more ore while manufacturing, I was actually thinking more along the route of the refine efficiency being reduced so hisec can never do a perfect refine, which enables nullsec to actually implement mining taxes without having everyone circumvent them by compressing the ore and jumping it to hisec to refine there.

Cazador 64 wrote:
As far as increasing risk in high sec missions that is being put into play with the smarter AI not sure how much risk it will involve but I do not see an issues with some increased risk.

It most likely won't add any risk whatsoever.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#407 - 2012-10-20 20:20:22 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Cazador 64 wrote:
I am not into indy much so some of this is hard to follow but I get the gist of it.
Not really sure of a way to implement risk here to the high sec player.
Perhaps Limit high sec manufacturing to certain things ? Increased manufacturing times? Implement some kind of higher cost to manufacture via a tax like you suggested?
Maybe something along the lines of wasting more ore while manufacturing not really sure.
I am not entirely versed in this field of play with INDY but I can see the point of the no risk and the counter needed for it.

Increased manufacturing times is already there, since nullsec stations can be upgraded to work quicker than hisec slots. As for limiting hisec to certain items, this is already the case, although the limits are capital ships and up. And as for wasting more ore while manufacturing, I was actually thinking more along the route of the refine efficiency being reduced so hisec can never do a perfect refine, which enables nullsec to actually implement mining taxes without having everyone circumvent them by compressing the ore and jumping it to hisec to refine there.

Cazador 64 wrote:
As far as increasing risk in high sec missions that is being put into play with the smarter AI not sure how much risk it will involve but I do not see an issues with some increased risk.

It most likely won't add any risk whatsoever.

I mentioned the refine thing in another thread a while ago as well, and completely agree with this as well.

Refining in high sec, at what would be considered perfect based on skill and standing, should be less than in low and even less than in null.

Random numbers.
Perfect refine in high should go to 80%, low 90%, null 99%.

Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#408 - 2012-10-20 20:26:03 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

It isn't, High sec pays more, it's null doesn't pay more compaired to what you can do in high sec given the amount of risk.
There is also less activity, system by system than you'll find in high sec, and that's not good either.


Think of it first this way: why is there little to no activity in some systems when most of then don't even see a fly in local for days or weeks?
Remember this important part: less players doing stuff=less activity
And why less activity? -because of cloacky alts? -this is a nonsense response and the easy road to excuse bad thinking or inability to deal with those cloacky ships, in high sec do you care about cloacky ships?
-how much safe are you against someone willing to gank you?

The major problem with those empty systems and people not loggin in null sec is because aside fleet ops where they might get spot for inactivity/participation and get kicked.
They rather spend time with their alts under concord safety doing lazy stuff instead of cleaning null sec anoms/exploration killing gangs camping staging/major systems or whatever because this means they would take risks, and this happens so often no one undocks because main log there but afk while all alts doing "stuff" in high sec.
Majority of null sec gangs trying to get fights at important staging stations can't get none or once in a while.
So, who's the risk averse?


Quote:
The regular rank and file guys are not going to make considerably more than you can in high sec. You've got less access, and considerably more interuptions.


While I agree the random null sec belt can give you less than a good lvl4 in high sec currently you still have far more juicy opportunities in exploration and other stuff. CCP nerf null sec anoms that hard it's indeed not the most interesting activity to get isk when all you need is lvl4's and ignore all the baits to get a better profit.

Quote:
It's the EASE in which you can earn in high sec that's the problem. That can't be fixed though, but you can incrase the ease in null by simply making some things more accesible, like mission agents.

I do not think people are going to null to run mission. Obviously most are here for pvp, but they need things to do in down time, and there's simply not as much as compaired to high sec. That needs correcting.



Actually high sec is not that easy, it's more about null sec suffering from bad game design/mechanics, just like Tengu real problem is HM's and not the ship it self.
Null sec needs huge buffs to industry slots/timers/refining/manyfactoring/invention/copy etc, small buff to anom rats bounty, some changes to this really really stupid activity that is shoot structures, my goodness how could someone ever invent something as boring if not even worst than mining? -structures shooting !
Once these are done and without touching high sec a single dime you need some time to get factual data and then try something else. Buff industry in null will make all the economy evolving around follow it, no need to nerf high sec.

brb
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#409 - 2012-10-20 20:28:28 UTC
Cazador 64 wrote:


I am not into indy much so some of this is hard to follow but I get the gist of it.
Not really sure of a way to implement risk here to the high sec player.
Perhaps Limit high sec manufacturing to certain things ? Increased manufacturing times? Implement some kind of higher cost to manufacture via a tax like you suggested?
Maybe something along the lines of wasting more ore while manufacturing not really sure.
I am not entirely versed in this field of play with INDY but I can see the point of the no risk and the counter needed for it.


As far as increasing risk in high sec missions that is being put into play with the smarter AI not sure how much risk it will involve but I do not see an issues with some increased risk.



Forget the idea of risk in high sec. Consider it a non factor that shouldn't be generated to compensate for anything. High sec is safe; that should be a baseline. (well, safish)

Think of it as safety, the more of it you have, comes with a COST. If you live in high sec you should pay for your safety.

Higher tax rates, lower refine rates, higher production rates, higher invention and research rates, limitted production slots in every station, drastically limitted research and inventiion slots in high sec overall, and higher broker fees.

I don't think high sec should have "more risk", sort of. :)
Believe it or not, I'm of the opinion that if you're a pirate, and you operate in high sec, that you assume the vast majority of risk. The PvE'ers in high sec should assume considerably less of the risk, it is kind of the point of high sec and brings more people to the game. That is absolutely not to say that high sec should be completely safe, just that the risk doesn't need to be increased.

The cost of living in high sec, and doing business in high sec should go up.
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#410 - 2012-10-20 20:35:59 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

You see, contrary to what some of you high sec know-it-alls think, not everyone in null is there to "gank" people, not all of us are there just for pvp. Not all of us are there for pvp, but we don't cry about it.

Cough. Minor correction.

The problem is nullseccers coming TO highsec to gank and the ones being ganked don't want to be involved in PvP either.

Besides, it generally isn't called ganking in nullsec, it's called PvP.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#411 - 2012-10-20 20:55:57 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

You see, contrary to what some of you high sec know-it-alls think, not everyone in null is there to "gank" people, not all of us are there just for pvp. Not all of us are there for pvp, but we don't cry about it.

Cough. Minor correction.

The problem is nullseccers coming TO highsec to gank and the ones being ganked don't want to be involved in PvP either.

Besides, it generally isn't called ganking in nullsec, it's called PvP.

Someone used the excuse that null sec guys just want people to come to null so we can "gank them", hence my use of "gank" to say PvP.

As far as people going to high sec to gank, working as intended, and always should. There is nothing wrong with going to high sec to gank, only going to high sec to earn isk to pvp in null.
Aille Pluthrak
Perkone
Caldari State
#412 - 2012-10-20 22:23:35 UTC
Six years and nothing has changed
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#413 - 2012-10-20 22:50:55 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Think of it first this way: why is there little to no activity in some systems when most of then don't even see a fly in local for days or weeks? Remember this important part: less players doing stuff=less activity And why less activity? -because of cloacky alts? -this is a nonsense response and the easy road to excuse bad thinking or inability to deal with those cloacky ships, in high sec do you care about cloacky ships? -how much safe are you against someone willing to gank you? The major problem with those empty systems and people not loggin in null sec is because aside fleet ops where they might get spot for inactivity/participation and get kicked. They rather spend time with their alts under concord safety doing lazy stuff instead of cleaning null sec anoms/exploration killing gangs camping staging/major systems or whatever because this means they would take risks, and this happens so often no one undocks because main log there but afk while all alts doing "stuff" in high sec. Majority of null sec gangs trying to get fights at important staging stations can't get none or once in a while. So, who's the risk averse?
I don't think that there is a problem with getting people who live in null to do things in null. I believe that the content is being consumed, and it can only be consumed where it is available. Making mission agents available in more systems in null would help with the "wasted system" syndrome that null currently has. People who live in null aren't risk averse because they do content in high sec. They do it because it's just as easy to get to as the same content in null sec, and easier. You can't camp a gate in high. If you have two mission agents, both of them the same distance from you, but one is in high sec, why wouldn't you do that one? The exploration sites were run in the morning; not everyone wants to rat.
Quote:
While I agree the random null sec belt can give you less than a good lvl4 in high sec currently you still have far more juicy opportunities in exploration and other stuff. CCP nerf null sec anoms that hard it's indeed not the most interesting activity to get isk when all you need is lvl4's and ignore all the baits to get a better profit.
All that stuff is run in the morning, and it's easier to run the lvl 4 in high sec than the one in null.
Quote:
Actually high sec is not that easy, it's more about null sec suffering from bad game design/mechanics, just like Tengu real problem is HM's and not the ship it self. Null sec needs huge buffs to industry slots/timers/refining/manyfactoring/invention/copy etc, small buff to anom rats bounty, some changes to this really really stupid activity that is shoot structures, my goodness how could someone ever invent something as boring if not even worst than mining? -structures shooting ! Once these are done and without touching high sec a single dime you need some time to get factual data and then try something else. Buff industry in null will make all the economy evolving around follow it, no need to nerf high sec.
You're pretty much saying the same thing I am here, just without touching high sec. Except that the easy part is the bad game design. Industry in null is an entirely other problem, although it's impacted by peoples activeties. Smaller corps and alliances are going to feel this impact much more than I am. I don't sell a handful of things. A couple hundred market orders is a crapton of stuff to monitor and maintain, and it gives me a pretty good impressin of what people are doing. Not to mention almost all of it is stuff I build. More people, doing more PvE content, deeper into null would benefit me. I believe that there is an imbalance in the distribution of content. Keeping people who live in null, playing in null, is just one step in improving life here. I'm assuming, that in orfer for me to have access to certain materials i need to build in VFK that people would have to be doing the exploration stuff. Sinse I do have access to this stuff, then it is safe for me to assume that that content is being consumed. I base my assumptions off of the salvage that is available to me, and when it is primarilly available; IE: the time of day it is sold to me most. (Yes, I am completely ignoring rating in null. Because lol, ratting.) By observing this one market, every day, literally all day long, I come to the conclusion that later in the day there is less consumable content available, therefore more people are doing agent missins. Those missions are nowhere near me. For the a large portion of null players, who are not industry guys, the content to generate isk is easier to GET TO in high sec than it is in null; therefore they're more likely to do the easier to GET TO content. Allowing agent missions to be installed in sov systems would make it easier to GET TO for everyone in null. If everyone has access to those agents, and those agents paid well, it might encourage other people to come to null to do them. Not neccesarilly to live here. In the end, more people playing in null will make null more fun. I do not think that only fixing the problems null has is going to attract more people to null, or that making high sec less safe is the way to go either. I think high sec should be more costly, as a way to encourage people who are seeeking greater wealth to come to null and play. Even industry fixes can encourage that. Yes you can make your fortune in null sec, I know this first hand as my entire fortune has been made in null; doing nothing but industry and science. However, I can't just undock and do pve content later in the day here; that's not exactly a problem in high sec though. CCP isn't really do all they can to attract PvE guys who don't mind PvP to live in null. That guy can live in high sec, doing high sec missions, and then just jump the boarder to do a little pvp.

WTF. I aint fixing that.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#414 - 2012-10-20 22:54:48 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Think of it first this way: why is there little to no activity in some systems when most of then don't even see a fly in local for days or weeks?
Remember this important part: less players doing stuff=less activity
And why less activity? -because of cloacky alts? -this is a nonsense response and the easy road to excuse bad thinking or inability to deal with those cloacky ships, in high sec do you care about cloacky ships?
-how much safe are you against someone willing to gank you?

The major problem with those empty systems and people not loggin in null sec is because aside fleet ops where they might get spot for inactivity/participation and get kicked.
They rather spend time with their alts under concord safety doing lazy stuff instead of cleaning null sec anoms/exploration killing gangs camping staging/major systems or whatever because this means they would take risks, and this happens so often no one undocks because main log there but afk while all alts doing "stuff" in high sec.
Majority of null sec gangs trying to get fights at important staging stations can't get none or once in a while.
So, who's the risk averse?

I have tons of issues with this bit. First of all, the reason there's less activity in nullsec is because it's easier, it requires less effort and it's less risky (and it'll be even less risky once retribution hits).

Second, the whole deal with "don't want to be online in case they might get spotted for inactivity" is because there are essentially 2 things worth doing in nullsec, PVP and building supercaps. Outside of that, it's much less effort to do anything in hisec, which means non-PVP guys don't really contribute much.

Thirdly, risk aversion is less of a factor in this than the fact that f.ex regions like deklein has less manufacturing capacity than quite a few hisec systems do, and if you are one of the sods who decide to do manufacturing in nullsec you've got to mine in one system, maybe haul it to a second to refine and finally haul it to the final system to build and hope there's still slots available. All of this takes effort and preparation, because you don't jump a freighter around blind, you don't trust that everyone else are paying attention/aren't lying, and you also don't trust that there isn't an awoxer derping around looking to shoot you.

Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
While I agree the random null sec belt can give you less than a good lvl4 in high sec currently you still have far more juicy opportunities in exploration and other stuff. CCP nerf null sec anoms that hard it's indeed not the most interesting activity to get isk when all you need is lvl4's and ignore all the baits to get a better profit.

Unless you're running around with very, very expensive mods, L4s are about as safe an isk-making as you can get without undocking, and you can easily watch a movie while doing one. Do that in nullsec and it's a recipe for a hilariously bad lossmail.

Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Actually high sec is not that easy, it's more about null sec suffering from bad game design/mechanics, just like Tengu real problem is HM's and not the ship it self.
Null sec needs huge buffs to industry slots/timers/refining/manyfactoring/invention/copy etc, small buff to anom rats bounty, some changes to this really really stupid activity that is shoot structures, my goodness how could someone ever invent something as boring if not even worst than mining? -structures shooting !
Once these are done and without touching high sec a single dime you need some time to get factual data and then try something else. Buff industry in null will make all the economy evolving around follow it, no need to nerf high sec.

Actually, there are a few good reasons to do a few small hisec nerfs, and they all have to do with incentivizing local manufacture and mining in nullsec.

First of all, the main problem with nullsec industry is the fact the capacity is not, and will not, ever be there to compete with hisec in any way, shape or form. Secondly, compressing minerals in hisec and importing to nullsec, for use in manufacturing is vastly preferable to mining locally and lugging the ore and mineral around (remember, a good refinery and a good set of manufacturing lines don't coexist today, and there's no guarantee you can even mine in the same system as a refinery). Lastly, manufacturing in hisec and importing is preferable to importing compressed minerals.

Increasing manufacturing costs, increasing sales taxes and maybe even adding manufacturing inefficiencies in hisec would mean nullsec could be a more cost-effective place to move your industry, if combined with a proper industry buff of nullsec. If you also make refining in hisec impossible to get to 100%, you'll also give nullsec alliances some leway in whether or not they tax refining in their stations, currently 0.5% or something silly like that makes it more profitable to compress the ore and ship it to hisec for refining.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Karrl Tian
Doomheim
#415 - 2012-10-20 23:13:02 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Karrl Tian wrote:
Alexa Coates wrote:
the real problem is all the assholes in low/null chased everyone out so now they're whining and crying to have everyone forced into low/null so they can shoot them.


No, the real problem is that there's no incentive to fight back against the assholes in low/null while there's every incentive to grind isk in highsec. The real problem is that the people who pvp in null have no incentive to do anything but pvp there so long as there's highsec to take care of their PVE and manufacturing needs.

On other MMOs with world pvp (and even WoW's pvp servers back before pvp there became instanced cross-server bullshit gear grinds), when someone screwed with enough people's attempts to PvE, they got together and beat the tards down, or at least chased them out of the area (doesn't matter how l337 you are when you have 30+ bears zerging your ass).

Griefers in game (and IRL) tend to give up fairly quickly when it becomes obvious their prey is working together and there's a risk they'll get their face punched in. This pattern is in every single game and it's true for EVE whenever a small griefer corp learns the hard way that the carebear alliance they just decked is going to come looking for them with every available member every time they log in rather than just sitting back to let them pick off mission/miners. Yes, with insta-undocking cloakies they can't be killed, but if enough time goes by without them getting tears/ransoms/kills they'll move on to an easier target.

I'm of the opinion that anyone that insists on repeatedly calling another group of people "assholes" is more than likely the ******* themselves.

Greifers in real life?

People work together to stop gankers in MMO's?

People in null don't want PvE? Funny how even some of the guys that run the alliances and null sec corps have been asking CCP to allow them to install mission agents, because they obviously don't want any pve in null.

I love the way some of you high sec guys know more about null and what null players want than we do.

You probably think CCP sees your posts and start high fiving in the office because "someone" gets it. Sadly, you haven't a ******* clue what you're talking about. You keep spouting out how we're a bunch of assholes though, you're a pillar of your high sec community.

Anyone else noticed, the most beligerent posts in this thread haven't been from low and null sec players, it's the high sec guys being rude and belligerent, stating that all we want are poeple to gank. Typical of the self entitled brat who thinks everything should work their way, and only their way.


Wasn't calling null/low players assholes per se or implying null players didn't want to PvE, just pointing out that the highsec situation allows players to farm in safety rather than defend against hostiles coming in to gank them when PvEing as they would have to do if that was the best source of income.
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#416 - 2012-10-20 23:21:12 UTC
Karrl Tian wrote:

Wasn't calling null/low players assholes per se

Firstly, the nullseccers IN highsec are.

The nullseccers in nullsec are not. They just get on with it.

Quote:
or implying null players didn't want to PvE

Not true. They just don't want YOU to.

PROTIP: Apparently ALL PvE in highsec is now "AFK". As soon as you see this you can be guaranteed that it is not THEM talking, it's the new propoganda catchphrase trying to justify nullseccers in highsec being a-holes..... per se.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#417 - 2012-10-20 23:22:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Touval Lysander wrote:
Karrl Tian wrote:

Wasn't calling null/low players assholes per se

Firstly, the nullseccers IN highsec are.

Why? What makes me an automatic ******* because I'm making isk in hisec?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#418 - 2012-10-20 23:41:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Touval Lysander
Lord Zim wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
Karrl Tian wrote:

Wasn't calling null/low players assholes per se

Firstly, the nullseccers IN highsec are.

Why? What makes me an automatic ******* because I'm making isk in hisec?

I'll nutshell it for you.

Nullsec whiners want the benefits of highsec in nullsec with the playstyle of nullsec.

But they want highsec to have the playstyle of nullsec without the benefits of highsec.

Which group you in?

Lemme guess - you're BOTH.

You're playing in highsec calling for highsec to be like nullsec and claiming you're in highsec because nullsec is not as good as highsec.

Confused? You should be. You've created your own circle-jerk.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#419 - 2012-10-20 23:51:22 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
Karrl Tian wrote:

Wasn't calling null/low players assholes per se

Firstly, the nullseccers IN highsec are.

Why? What makes me an automatic ******* because I'm making isk in hisec?

I'll nutshell it for you.

Nullsec whiners want the benefits of highsec in nullsec with the playstyle of nullsec.

But they want highsec to have the playstyle of nullsec without the benefits of highsec.

Which group you in?

Lemme guess - you're BOTH.

You're playing in highsec calling for highsec to be like nullsec and claiming you're in highsec because nullsec is not as good as highsec.

Confused? You should be. You've created your own circle-jerk.


Every single sentence of your post is just random noise. You couldn't provide evidence for even one of them, if challenged.
pinkdeath Alar
Doomheim
#420 - 2012-10-21 00:03:12 UTC
move all l4 to low are null and watch nothing happen lol they will just find somthing else to do few months later you be like nerf
l3