These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

You CANT Nerf HighSec!

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#2101 - 2013-01-03 21:40:19 UTC
We've lived with station denial since the first outpost was put into nullsec, and it's not causing any problems whatsoever for nullsec. The sov mechanics for taking over a system does cause massive amounts of problems, but the station denial mechanic isn't.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2102 - 2013-01-03 21:41:00 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

Let's stick to what's tangible and not your imagination:

1) There were 1T damage dealt, thousands ships popped. Edit: that is a big switch from "artisan ganking by individuals" to "scorched earth as permanent profession, aided by coordinated null sec alliance pilots and infinite funding".
2) Ice prices went from 400 to 1600 in few months.
3) CCP's official word about that has been that they don't support ganking (empty ships) for profit. Now go do your work and find the exact reference, I won't bother.

Guess what was the obvious conclusion?

Decrease yield for tanking modules? Spend twos of millions of isk on empty midslots?
Pay a 10 mil/month fee to mine in 0.0 where suicide ganking was not a threat?

The greatest excesses of Hulkageddon V was not sufficient enough threat to get the 'victims' to consider any of those.
Now they complain about something called "miner bumping". So there was no real problem, merely CCP listening to forum requests. Which you claim they don't do, yes?


Rentals are around 10 mill a month? Really? I though it would be higher.

During the height of hulkageddon V and people like Vaerah were going 'blarrhuauarrggh, highsec is now more dangerous then nullsec, those nullbears are raping us without risk and killing eve everyone will unsub' I was pointing to some experimental Cascade Imminent 'mining pass' program which was just a flat monthly 10m isk/member fee (Experimental in that most landlords charge on a per corp basis that is funded through bounty taxes/pve ops in my experience). Really it was just a plan to fill buy orders frof lowends because Cascade logistics were ass.

Cuz you know, if mining and industry in highsec was so tough, as they claimed, then maybe a nominal 10m fee for access to the lucrative nullsec industry would be right up their alley. As a business venture, it was sadly a failure - but it exposed the bankruptcy of the 'suffering highsec miners' argument during Hulkageddon Infinity quite well.


You learn something new everyday. If the space was raelly secure, then there was no reason to not at least try it out if you knew about it. Well except really being affraid of leaving high that is...
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2103 - 2013-01-03 21:45:26 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
As a business venture, it was sadly a failure - ...


A failure, at least in part, because of the greater failure of sov holding alliances to create an atmospheric (if you will) within their holdings where such an offer would be taken seriously.

If your empire (or at least it's myth) is built on deception and violence, it's disingenuous at the very least to use the reluctance of anyone to trust you as evidence of anything else.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2104 - 2013-01-03 21:47:41 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

"Plan" (taken from my post) <> implement / debug ("fix" in your reply). It's also why I am against going all berserk out with nerfs buffs and drastic changes. They PLAN their game but when it's time to implement then stuff happens.


I removed the entirety of your wild tangents and all of the ~highsec intellectualism~.

You claimed in an earlier post that CCP is incapable of fixing their game. I called you on that, now's the part where you either deny that you did so or confirm that you did so. The obfuscation taught at the school for ~highsec intellectuals~ isn't fooling anyone.

Look at these gems:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

No. Game's old and mechanics have "stabilized". Your requests (edit: the ones going beyond adding production lines to null and POSes) would be golden for an alpha status MMO, not a 10 years old one. Plus the old developers seem to have gone as well. As much as their programming practices could be labelled as "spaghetti code", it's them who brought us a game with more features 1 year ago than today. It's thanks to *them* EvE became what it is. The new ones don't seem to be able to refactor existing code without dropping much nice features like corp hangars for ships, stored hangar to open when docking and much more.


Basically CCP is not capable of fixing their game is what you are saying.

Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

EvE is made on a center-periphery model somewhat based on the Dependency Theory.

That brings in two different and quite important issues:

1) Changing that into a "peer model" (or even swapping the sides) is something extremely profound. If done fast or bad it could impact EvE like NGE did for SWG.

This (and not the immediate hi sec nerfs) is what really really troubles me into stepping in with two elephant feet as GS members want.

While I'd like for EvE to change, I don't want it to die because of the change. Unlike SWG we *already* start with a "nerfed" number of player base, we can't afford a second WiS fiasco (even the risk of having it), EvE is still not done recovering from it!

I wish the various GS posters could *see* this hugely massive danger, but they seem "water proof" when limitations are presented before them.

2) We know CCP are using an economist (with a part time team or similar). His expertise and view of how EvE should work are probably strictly doubly tied to how the game actually works. Changing EvE as requested would put him in a position of having to adapt the whole thing to a new course. Who is ready to bet he would be willing to do that or even could manage to do that?


Oh look "CCP isn't capable of changing their game and adapting to the change. Their economist isn't capable of doing what he is paid to do." Now I could cite a bunch of fallacies to say why your "sky is falling if CCP changes EVE it will die" argument but until I see the :foxnews: stopping you get as little effort as possible.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#2105 - 2013-01-03 21:48:00 UTC
There exists this thing called "bringing a t1 mining barge thingy to test the water before actually splurging on the big toys" in such a situation.

However, that did involve putting a whole, what, 5-10 million isk on the line. The horror.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#2106 - 2013-01-03 21:50:33 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
There exists this thing called "bringing a t1 mining barge thingy to test the water before actually splurging on the big toys" in such a situation.

However, that did involve putting a whole, what, 5-10 million isk on the line. The horror.



One time I advised a new player to keep an eye on his overview and warp out if anyone suspicious looking landed on grid then social services took him away and now I'm not allowed within 100 yards of the help channel :(

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2107 - 2013-01-03 21:51:12 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
There exists this thing called "bringing a t1 mining barge thingy to test the water before actually splurging on the big toys" in such a situation.

However, that did involve putting a whole, what, 5-10 million isk on the line. The horror.


Oh man that's the cost of an AFK mining pass from the "New Order" of Highsec.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2108 - 2013-01-03 21:54:12 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
There exists this thing called "bringing a t1 mining barge thingy to test the water before actually splurging on the big toys" in such a situation.

However, that did involve putting a whole, what, 5-10 million isk on the line. The horror.


Even with the current price, putting a fitted retriever on the line to test the water would not be so bad of an idea and we are talking about just a bit under 30 mill + potential pod value I guess.

Hell you could even put only a damn cruiser abck then to try the water. You would get your money back fast even if only mining in an osprey with the old bonuses...
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2109 - 2013-01-03 21:57:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Malphilos wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
As a business venture, it was sadly a failure - ...


A failure, at least in part, because of the greater failure of sov holding alliances to create an atmospheric (if you will) within their holdings where such an offer would be taken seriously.
yeah, the renter model is really suffering - if only FAIL had the warm atmosphere and chivalric e-honoure of other, hugely successful landlords like -A- or SOLAR. Get real.

The only difference was this was targeted at the highsec miners who complained about the risk introduced in Hulkageddon V. As it turned out, the worst vagaries of Hulkageddon V did not merit a 20m investment. So we can conclude that, judging by their actions and not their words, the outcry behind Hulkageddon V was entirely without base. Or that the worst case in highsec industry is still far, far better then access to all of nullsec industry with practically zero of the cost.
Bump Truck
Doomheim
#2110 - 2013-01-03 22:11:17 UTC



This thread has surpassed all my best hopes. Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful and well researched posts.

There were also trolls.
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2111 - 2013-01-03 22:12:34 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Malphilos wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
As a business venture, it was sadly a failure - ...


A failure, at least in part, because of the greater failure of sov holding alliances to create an atmospheric (if you will) within their holdings where such an offer would be taken seriously.
yeah, the renter model is really suffering - if only FAIL had the warm atmosphere and chivalric e-honoure of other, hugely successful landlords like -A- or SOLAR. Get real.


Wait... you expect people to react to what's real?

Where the hell are you from?

Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
The only difference was this was targeted at the highsec miners who complained about the risk introduced in Hulkageddon V. As it turned out, the worst vagaries of Hulkageddon V did not merit a 20m investment. So we can conclude that, judging by their actions and not their words, the outcry behind Hulkageddon V was entirely without base. Or that the worst case in highsec industry is still far, far better then access to all of nullsec industry with practically zero of the cost.


A 20m payment to the very people (hideous null sec gankers, they're all the same) that were orchestrating and cheering hulkageddon. It's either tribute or the most obvious scam ever. Possibly second most obvious after Goon recruitment.

You'd like to say it obviously means something else, but it just ain't so.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2112 - 2013-01-03 22:14:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Maybe Malphilos is right.

Maybe the reason why some people were trusting enough of CI to rent systems to park their blapfit titans in sanctums for hours every day, but not enough to let some highsec veld miner trust them with a 10m investment and 10 m ship, even during the "stressful" times of Hulkageddon doesn't have anything to do with the innate superiority of highsec when it comes to lowend mining and subcap manufacturing. Perhaps it truly is... e-honour based reasons.

Truly the State War Academy has taught him well over these past 9 years.
Bump Truck
Doomheim
#2113 - 2013-01-03 22:18:34 UTC
Tesal wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Tesal wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Tesal wrote:
And reasoned arguments have been made against it. I trust CCP won't do anything radical.

Could you please summarize these points? I've not seen any for a while in this thread that haven't been addressed.


1. there is already a balance between hi, low and null that would be upset.
2. there would be nothing to stop the HBC and CFC from rolling 15k new alts and supplanting hi-sec industry completely if these changes were made. That would leave even more power concentrated in their hands.

Those are some of my ideas.

Ok point 1

Stagnation is not a balance, it was that kind of thinking that got people burned at the stake for saying that the earth was round. Because it is the way it is now in no way makes it right or balance it just makes it what it currently is.

Point 2. There is nothing stopping them at the moment from rolling out 15k alts and controlling hi-sec industry by just doing it in hi-sec. The fact that they seem opposed to new indy players from within the game will mean that while they take there own alts to Null, while other Null sec alliances making welcoming gestures to Indy players will actually become more powerful as 15k is only a drop in the bucket compared to 450,000

1. This point is subjective and can be argued either way if you consider one side more fair than another, but its still a point to consider.

2. Null players can come to hi-sec, hi-sec players can't necessarily go to null. If you supplant hi-sec industry, hi-sec industrialists will be out of a job because *many* don't have a null home. That will leave industry probably in the hands of the CFC and HBC, they are the biggest and most powerful and have the most secure space. I think that's something to consider. You don't think this is a legitimate point, but the Devs might.



I think this is one of the profound issues with the development of EVE at the moment.

The idea that the space you live in gives you an identity, you are a "HighSec player" or a "null bear" or a "wormholer" etc.

This then makes you feel like you have to fight, in a partisan and biased manner, for your space, your nationalistic identity defining space, to be improved at the expense of the others.

I this this kind of belief should be discouraged at all turns, as above, "Null players can come to hi-sec, hi-sec players can't necessarily go to null", this is just wrong, jump gates go both ways, the barrier is intellectual, imaginary, in the identity.


Moreover this problem gets much worse when there are a group of "HighSec Players" who plex their accounts every month.

Basically they will fight tooth and claw against any HighSec Nerf because their world is under threat. They have built a prison, a prison of the mind, and then others come along and threaten to destroy the one place they have! At least there is the prison cell to live in! And what if that is damaged, unmanageable chaos...


...except that all of this thread is about rebuilding null, making it meaningful and whole. Making it more worth recruiting newbs and industrialists to the big Null blocks, giving people more options and more freedom and making the game better.


No "HighSec Player" will ever agree, but for the rest of us, all of us who are just players, there is no other path to go down.
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2114 - 2013-01-03 22:29:12 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Perhaps it truly is... e-honour based reasons.


Oh shullbit.

It's not nothing to do with your little catchphrase meme, and everything to do with the deliberate impression that's been created.

"Hey, highsec miner carebear pubbie! You are the most hated person in EVE, we want you out. We're ganking you for teh LULZ! But pay us 20m and you can come to our backyard where we promise not to shoot."

And you pretend it's all a rational deliberation based on the actuality of rental agreements and mutual financial benefit?

Either your social skills or BS skills are in need of a serious touchup.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2115 - 2013-01-03 22:29:23 UTC
Bump Truck wrote:
I think this is one of the profound issues with the development of EVE at the moment.

The idea that the space you live in gives you an identity, you are a "HighSec player" or a "null bear" or a "wormholer" etc.

This then makes you feel like you have to fight, in a partisan and biased manner, for your space, your nationalistic identity defining space, to be improved at the expense of the others.

I this this kind of belief should be discouraged at all turns, as above, "Null players can come to hi-sec, hi-sec players can't necessarily go to null", this is just wrong, jump gates go both ways, the barrier is intellectual, imaginary, in the identity.

Moreover this problem gets much worse when there are a group of "HighSec Players" who plex their accounts every month.

Basically they will fight tooth and claw against any HighSec Nerf because their world is under threat. They have built a prison, a prison of the mind, and then others come along and threaten to destroy the one place they have! At least there is the prison cell to live in! And what if that is damaged, unmanageable chaos...

...except that all of this thread is about rebuilding null, making it meaningful and whole. Making it more worth recruiting newbs and industrialists to the big Null blocks, giving people more options and more freedom and making the game better.

No "HighSec Player" will ever agree, but for the rest of us, all of us who are just players, there is no other path to go down.


I'd love to do away with the location labeling here but, a lot of people against this idea of rehabilitating nullsec continually use it to make ~well reasoned arguments~. Not to mention those that use :goonspiracy: as a reason to be against rehabilitating nullsec.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Bump Truck
Doomheim
#2116 - 2013-01-03 22:33:17 UTC


And another thing,

this whole "just because 71% of toons are in highsec doesn't mean 71% of players are, they're all null alts, the mittani alone has 100,000 accounts in highsec for lols etc so really everything is fine" mentality, is totally wrong.

If you assume that each toon represents an equal amount of a players energy then where the toons are does represent where the players are spending their time. So that means 71% of player time is spent in highsec, showing it is overpowered.


Or you could argue that a nullsec toon represents more of a time investment than say, a station trading character in highsec, and therefore the distribution of toons isn't totally accurate, but it is a reasonable starting point considering the lack of any other data (maybe number of hours spent by a player in different areas etc).

The idea that a "nullsec player" having an alt in highsec means less than a "highsec player" is absurd. Why couldn't you consider the first a "highsec player" with a nullsec alt?


This relates to what I was saying above about identity. Without identity balancing the regions is all that matters, it's not about what "type" of player you are. With identity there is no real debate, only tears and moans.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2117 - 2013-01-03 22:34:25 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
We've lived with station denial since the first outpost was put into nullsec, and it's not causing any problems whatsoever for nullsec. The sov mechanics for taking over a system does cause massive amounts of problems, but the station denial mechanic isn't.

I BOUGHT A HOUSE BUT **** ME IF I CAN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO LOCK THE DOOR
OH **** THE DOORS DON'T HAVE LOCKS ON THEM

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2118 - 2013-01-03 22:34:52 UTC
Malphilos wrote:


Oh shullbit.

It's not nothing to do with your little catchphrase meme, and everything to do with the deliberate impression that's been created.

"Hey, highsec miner carebear pubbie! You are the most hated person in EVE, we want you out. We're ganking you for teh LULZ! But pay us 20m and you can come to our backyard where we promise not to shoot."

And you pretend it's all a rational deliberation based on the actuality of rental agreements and mutual financial benefit?

Either your social skills or BS skills are in need of a serious touchup.


Perhaps is the people that refuse to even consider what the other is saying that need the social skills revamp? Perhaps miners should be less hostile to outsiders? If www.minerbumping.com is any indication the miners behave far worse than the gankers do.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2119 - 2013-01-03 22:41:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Malphilos wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Perhaps it truly is... e-honour based reasons.


Oh shullbit.

It's not nothing to do with your little catchphrase meme, and everything to do with the deliberate impression that's been created

Sorry but your musings on 'reputations' and 'impressions' being a barrier can easily be dismissed as ther unfounded claims of an uninformed NPC corp poster when simply noting the success of rental operations of the most elitist and contemptuous alliances like -A-. Or straight up celebrators of Hulkageddon like the HBC. Y'know, the groups that created those impressions. Simply put, charging access to ISK-based resource extraction in nullsec is a lucrative source of income (and in southern nullsec, the main source of alliance income). But charging access to nullsec low-end mineral/manufacturing based resources is not worth the price of a retriever, even during a supposed plague of suicide ganking. Yet people argue that no rebalancing of EVE's industry is needed.

Quote:
And you pretend it's all a rational deliberation based on the actuality of rental agreements and mutual financial benefit?
That's what renting is, a net cost/benefit analysis.
Felicity Love
Doomheim
#2120 - 2013-01-03 22:41:56 UTC
Please... somebody drive a wooden stake through the heart of this thread... and then **** Holy Water on it's grave.... Roll

"EVE is dying." -- The Four Forum Trolls of the Apocalypse.   ( Pick four, any four. They all smell.  )