These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#61 - 2012-12-16 18:51:49 UTC
I find myself wondering if it is even possible to "nerf" highsec sufficiently to cause any significant player movement, since the reasons why people play in highsec in general have very little to do with reward and very much to do with risk and resource availability.

They moved L5 missions to lowsec because they were "too easy" in highsec and the payouts were too high, the players didn't follow, the L5 missions are still there and run by a few skilled and risk tolerant individuals.

Lowsec and NPC nullsec missions pay considerably more than highsec missions, yet people still stick to highsec.

Capital ships were moved out of highsec because they were too powerful for controlled space and people should need to accept some risk to play with the best toys in the game, still most players stick to highsec.

The best ores and mining opportunities are only available outside highsec, yet the highsec belts are stripped by downtime on a regular basis.

I therefore contend that it is *not possible* to nerf highsec sufficiently to cause a significant change in player behaviour without removing it entirely as a part of the game.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Jame Jarl Retief
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#62 - 2012-12-16 18:56:51 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
I find myself wondering if it is even possible to "nerf" highsec sufficiently to cause any significant player movement, since the reasons why people play in highsec in general have very little to do with reward and very much to do with risk and resource availability.


That's not even up for debate, I don't think.

I mean, I think it is an accepted fact that you can't force a player to do something he doesn't want to do. If a player doesn't want to go to low/null/wh, there's no carrot big enough and no stick big enough to make them do it. At most you can force the player out of the game (eliminating hi-sec as an entity would do it). But you can't take a carebear and lure/force him into low/null. Just can't be done.

Granted, an argument can be made that perhaps we're better off without "those players". You know the drill - "Get back to WoW" and so on. But I have to ask (and nobody but CCP knows for sure) what percentage of the player base are "those players"? If the number is as high as 20% (or higher), can CCP afford to even upset those players? Never mind directly attack them? Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#63 - 2012-12-16 19:00:16 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
I find myself wondering if it is even possible to "nerf" highsec sufficiently to cause any significant player movement, since the reasons why people play in highsec in general have very little to do with reward and very much to do with risk and resource availability.

They moved L5 missions to lowsec because they were "too easy" in highsec and the payouts were too high, the players didn't follow, the L5 missions are still there and run by a few skilled and risk tolerant individuals.

Lowsec and NPC nullsec missions pay considerably more than highsec missions, yet people still stick to highsec.

Capital ships were moved out of highsec because they were too powerful for controlled space and people should need to accept some risk to play with the best toys in the game, still most players stick to highsec.

The best ores and mining opportunities are only available outside highsec, yet the highsec belts are stripped by downtime on a regular basis.

I therefore contend that it is *not possible* to nerf highsec sufficiently to cause a significant change in player behaviour without removing it entirely as a part of the game.

Well, what about "unsubbing"...

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Morganta
The Greater Goon
#64 - 2012-12-16 19:02:35 UTC
Captain Death1 wrote:


(if you want to fix null) might cut down on some of this

grifting players who try to move to null all the time ripping them off
ganking them when they join your fake corp
taking there stuff when you hall it to null
kicking them out of your corp with all there stuff stuck in corps station with no way to get it out
camping all the gates 24/7

this is a big one build ships and parts so there is stuff to buy in null




nobody gets ripped off if they don't want to be ripped off

the gullibility test is one of the finest tools null recruiters have at their disposal

if the recruit passes the test the corp gains a promising member and that recruit also gets to learn the nuances of navigating null as he brings his own crap to the home system.

if they fail the corp gets some stuff to fund operations and the recruit learns the 2nd most important rule of EvE, trust no one.

if you get kicked from corp that's your own fault, if you keep all your stuff at the corp station you're an idiot. Besides the second rule of Eve there is also the chance that your corp will get camped in station, never leave your eggs in one basket. That said if you can't get your stuff out of null, you should never have brought it in. (and yes YOU should schlep your crap in, if you live there you need to be able to navigate there in anything you might fly there)

nobody camps gates 24/7, if they do they are at just as much risk as people using the gate. if they can manage to lock down a system for extended periods then you should go somewhere else, there's plenty of places where there is no gate camp.

if a gate is camped use cov-ops or wait a while
if you live in null you better know how to fly cov-ops and you better have spent a couple days setting perches and safes in every system you'll travel through, then later you can do the entire region.

no... the real problem with null is nobody wants to do the prep work or work required to get there
Captain Death1
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#65 - 2012-12-16 19:04:51 UTC
I got to tell you i have max mining skill and the only place i want to mine is in null and pvp when i am not mining
and i solo pvp in null and low some times i don't do anything in high sec but dock in it



i have been in high sec all most 3 years nerf it all you like docking in high be the same




players in null are not trying real hard to get players like me to move there


its a sand box your the sales guy the null player make it happen new ideas not that hard


this is why you play a sand box game

some of you have 9000 man corps can't tell me you are not up to the task to getting high sec players to join your corps
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#66 - 2012-12-16 19:06:55 UTC
Morganta wrote:
no... the real problem with null is nobody wants to do the prep work or work required to get there

You should've seen the broadcast, there was a newbie that attacked one of the gate rats in their ibis and got shot up, was going to report it so people won't be killed by the "pirate".

Hilarious.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#67 - 2012-12-16 19:08:05 UTC
Captain Death1 wrote:
some of you have 9000 man corps can't tell me you are not up to the task to getting high sec players to join your corps

Hahahahahaha.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Captain Death1
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#68 - 2012-12-16 19:09:36 UTC
what ever enjoy null as it is no one cares
Brooks Puuntai
Solar Nexus.
#69 - 2012-12-16 19:14:43 UTC
I'm quite surprised, considering the topic this conversation has been somewhat civil.

CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE / Dynamic New Eden
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#70 - 2012-12-16 19:17:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Weaselior
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

Nerf hi sec to boost null sec is exactly as consequential as those who imposed the Tobin Tax with the pretense of funding other activities: they got NOTHING except their markets crushed and had to cancel it on the sly.

Making something suck does not EVER equal something else becoming awesome.

just as you fail to understand a tobin tax you fail to understand the concept of balancing

as a tobin tax is more intended to shape behavior (mostly removing useless parasitic activities) than to raise revenue: the goal is the behavior shaping while the money raised is a positive side effect

for eve balancing, the issue is highsec is buffed to an extent that makes proper balancing of null impossible: in order to properly balance null it is necessary that the excessive buffs highsec possesses be reduced. the nerfs are not for the sake of nerfing, they are critical to open up sufficent areas to innovate in null

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#71 - 2012-12-16 19:24:38 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Nerf hi sec to boost null sec is exactly as consequential as those who imposed the Tobin Tax with the pretense of funding other activities: they got NOTHING except their markets crushed and had to cancel it on the sly.

Making something suck does not EVER equal something else becoming awesome.

just as you fail to understand a tobin tax you fail to understand the concept of balancing

as a tobin tax is more intended to shape behavior (mostly removing useless parasitic activities) than to raise revenue: the goal is the behavior shaping while the money raised is a positive side effect

for eve balancing, the issue is highsec is buffed to an extent that makes proper balancing of null impossible: in order to properly balance null it is necessary that the excessive buffs highsec possesses be reduced. the nerfs are not for the sake of nerfing, they are critical to open up sufficent areas to innovate in null

Nullsec, cold and harsh.

Highsec, prosperous, warm and cuddly.


Working as intended...

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#72 - 2012-12-16 19:24:52 UTC
Morganta wrote:

nobody gets ripped off if they don't want to be ripped off

the gullibility test is one of the finest tools null recruiters have at their disposal

if the recruit passes the test the corp gains a promising member and that recruit also gets to learn the nuances of navigating null as he brings his own crap to the home system.

if they fail the corp gets some stuff to fund operations and the recruit learns the 2nd most important rule of EvE, trust no one.

if you get kicked from corp that's your own fault, if you keep all your stuff at the corp station you're an idiot. Besides the second rule of Eve there is also the chance that your corp will get camped in station, never leave your eggs in one basket. That said if you can't get your stuff out of null, you should never have brought it in. (and yes YOU should schlep your crap in, if you live there you need to be able to navigate there in anything you might fly there)

nobody camps gates 24/7, if they do they are at just as much risk as people using the gate. if they can manage to lock down a system for extended periods then you should go somewhere else, there's plenty of places where there is no gate camp.

if a gate is camped use cov-ops or wait a while
if you live in null you better know how to fly cov-ops and you better have spent a couple days setting perches and safes in every system you'll travel through, then later you can do the entire region.

no... the real problem with null is nobody wants to do the prep work or work required to get there


This is exactly a good piece of knowledge, it's exactly what I lived at my nullsec time, expecially the logistic / safes etc stuff.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#73 - 2012-12-16 19:29:49 UTC
Yorg Brazen wrote:


I never stated that wardeccs or wardecc costs were related to freighter ganking. I was responding to the OP's obvious desire to nerf high sec in order to give him more targets in nullsec, as this is as obvious as the nose on your face. Forcing habitual corporate wardeccers into lowsec and nullsec for their fights, gives him what he wants, more people to fight. Your definition of "ganking" appears to be different from mine so I will leave it at that, as I refer to it as constant wardeccs and preying on industrialist corps that have no hope of beating hardcore pvp'ers.

Bump Truck wrote:


13) This is just about some players trying to force everyone to play like them.

- It really isn't, diversity in the game is obviously really important, the vast majority of players specialize and that is a good thing. This is about balancing the regions of the game.


No actually, it's not "as obvious as the nose on my face".

When Null Sec anoms were first buffed - people moved from Hi-sec to Null-sec, either through renting space, joining renting alliances or joining other corps/alliances already established. In addition, hi-sec money making alts of null sec'ers were moved back to Null - also increasing the Null Sec population (because the money making alt would log in, and live in Null-Sec, not Hi-Sec).

So no, tbqh, most of the Null sec players responding to this thread (and indeed the OP) probably don't give a dam where you (or anyone else for that matter) plays, they just want to be able to build their empires and live in their space.

Pretty obvious, tbqh....

Roll

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
Lyron-Baktos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2012-12-16 19:31:00 UTC
Nerf hisec by 6%

Give lowsec 2%
Give 0.0 4%

Something along those lines
Captain Death1
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#75 - 2012-12-16 19:31:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Death1
if the recruit passes the test the corp gains a promising member and that recruit also gets to learn the nuances of navigating null as he brings his own crap to the home system.

if they fail the corp gets some stuff to fund operations and the recruit learns the 2nd most important rule of EvE, trust no one.

if you get kicked from corp that's your own fault, if you keep all your stuff at the corp station you're an idiot. Besides the second rule of Eve there is also the chance that your corp will get camped in station, never leave your eggs in one basket. That said if you can't get your stuff out of null, you should never have brought it in. (and yes YOU should schlep your crap in, if you live there you need to be able to navigate there in anything you might fly there)



see thats it they don't need to pass your test they not paying you to play the game (club)


all i get out of that is we want force high sec players to be target for are vet club good luck with that Evil
Bump Truck
Doomheim
#76 - 2012-12-16 19:32:03 UTC
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:

...




I disagree, if you think about the population of the areas the game is available (North America + Europe + Russia + Japan ~ 1.3 billion people) I highly doubt the 100k people you say are subbed are the whole niche for crazy space opera MMO's, even if people with an IQ of over 150 liked the game then that would still be 1.3 million before the niche was full.


I think you make a really valid point about how important it is not to screw over your customers, I think that's true in any industry, but you're right it's especially true here.

I have no idea what they were thinking with Incarna, that was obviously a joke, the room with a door. However, in the end, they've got to decide what kind of game they're trying to make and then make that. Some people won't like it and won't play. That's inevitable whatever they do.
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#77 - 2012-12-16 19:32:40 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
I find myself wondering if it is even possible to "nerf" highsec sufficiently to cause any significant player movement, since the reasons why people play in highsec in general have very little to do with reward and very much to do with risk and resource availability.

They moved L5 missions to lowsec because they were "too easy" in highsec and the payouts were too high, the players didn't follow, the L5 missions are still there and run by a few skilled and risk tolerant individuals.

Lowsec and NPC nullsec missions pay considerably more than highsec missions, yet people still stick to highsec.

Capital ships were moved out of highsec because they were too powerful for controlled space and people should need to accept some risk to play with the best toys in the game, still most players stick to highsec.

The best ores and mining opportunities are only available outside highsec, yet the highsec belts are stripped by downtime on a regular basis.

I therefore contend that it is *not possible* to nerf highsec sufficiently to cause a significant change in player behaviour without removing it entirely as a part of the game.

Well, what about "unsubbing"...

It's happened before, but pure highsec players are going to compare their rewards to other highsec players for the most part.

The ability to fly a Titan at all is a *huge* gameplay reward that isn't available in highsec, yet you don't hear highsec people whining about how unfair it is that they can't fly Titans.

There are a few gameplay aspects that highsec players do seem to miss, the number of threads in various forums here asking for a ship that plays like a carrier but is at a suitable power level for highsec is pretty significant.

But I'd say that for most players who do the dominant portion of their play in highsec the rewards available in other parts of space are actually irrelevant, as evidenced by actual behaviour over time.

On the other hand, the isk faucet represented by highsec missions scales by the number of characters, so while the reward for an individual character may be unimpressive the player behind him can multi-box missions and multiply that relatively modest payout by as much as they have the technical ability to pull off.

Since there is no equivalent scalable income source in nullsec, this means that *any* profitable payout level in highsec will result in highsec resources being used to fund nullsec wars for the limited resources there, to the extent that interested players are willing and able to do so.

With the predictable result that people who want to try to play the "pure nullsec" game will be frustrated in their ability to do so unless they either have the cooperation of a significant number of highsec players, or manage to control sufficient nullsec resources thet the lack of scalability ceases to be a problem for them (and even then are likely to be annoyed at their highsec-funded opposition).

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#78 - 2012-12-16 19:36:04 UTC
Captain Death1 wrote:
all i get out of that is we want force high sec players to be target for are vet club good luck with that Evil


Then you have, most emphatically and entirely, missed the point.

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
Bump Truck
Doomheim
#79 - 2012-12-16 19:38:34 UTC
Kinis Deren wrote:
There have been nerfs to hi sec income (L5 missions moved to low sec, datacore farming, PI taxes, Incursion nerfs) and they've made little to no difference in the player population distribution between the various secs. I'm all for "adjustments" to hi sec incomes for the sake of economic well being, but the "nerf hi sec to buff null" logic is clearly flawed, all too clearly mindless ranting and becoming rather boring tbh.

Plenty of players cling to the "risk vs reward" arguement in the debate around sec space income, with zero facts. In another thread, I at least attempted to quantify risk, with the data that is readily available, which seemed to indicate it was low sec that was most risky. In that thread Tippia made the valid point that ISK should be factored in to produce a viable metric. I challenge the OP of this thread to undertake such an analysis, say for VFK-IV, Amamake and Jita and then come back and argue their case.

Until the fundamental issues surrounding sov null are addressed by CCP, it will remain the place for the mega alliances/coalitions and remain an unattractive proposition for any player or small corp/alliance looking to establish a foothold. Sov null needs work on game mechanics, not simply a buff to incomes as this would inevitibly just make the mega rich even richer, but to give the sov null residents something to do other than participate in forum wars.Roll



Really interesting idea. I think if CCP wants to measure risk vs reward then how about this, look at the corporations, take the total income of the corp, minus expenses, and look at how many hours this took to achieve. Looking at High Sec corps and Null corps should paint an interesting picture.

It obviously misses out a huge amount of detail, like how different activities require different amounts of attention etc.

But if you had a program which added up every player in the corp, how many assets they had and how mucch ISK, how much they gained and how much they lost it would give you a look into risk vs reward.

Though, you're right, it doesn't satisfy your criteria of being readily availbale stats.
Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#80 - 2012-12-16 19:38:58 UTC
In a way I find it amusing that people want more high sec dwellers in null-sec, in particular industrialists and at the same time want more activity of the pew-pew kind. These two wishes simply cannot mix in EVE's current state regardless of how you end up balancing sources of ISK anywhere in the game.

We all know why industrialists avoid low and null-sec. We all know why null-sec (and low-sec) wants more people and activity.

So yeah, it is very amusing indeed. All these wishes that at the same time clash against each other yet everyone seem completely oblivious considering these arguments have been ongoing for who knows how long now.