These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tesal
#941 - 2012-12-24 02:44:49 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Tesal wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Tesal wrote:
*edit* I would argue that the economy affects more players than the conquest of a single region.


This is chicken-egg without the destruction caused by the content creators there would be no economy.


Its not chicken and egg, its cause/effect.

Plex speculation in Jita has a bigger impact on the average player than the conquest of Delve.

I think what your grasping at is that somehow nullsec "content creators" such as your own alliance are more vital towards the continuation of the game than players in other parts of the sandbox. That isn't true.


It is true, I don't see "Player X trades a lot" as a headline in any of the actual news outlets.


So now its come down to "whats in the news". I don't see "giant bluelists" making the news either. News coming out of nullsec is boring these days.
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#942 - 2012-12-24 02:52:51 UTC
rofl

you aren't facilitating any higher order of play by buying and selling stuff on the market

VV's examples of what he does are valid, though I would classify him as the exception that proves the rule

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#943 - 2012-12-24 03:04:01 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
VV's examples of what he does are valid, though I would classify him as the exception that proves the rule


This right here, you said it more succinctly than I could.

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

Tesal
#944 - 2012-12-24 03:04:58 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
rofl

you aren't facilitating any higher order of play by buying and selling stuff on the market

VV's examples of what he does are valid, though I would classify him as the exception that proves the rule


Buying and selling is content though. It has a valid space within the sandbox. The people presuming they are a higher order are mostly Goons in this thread. They are debasing what happens in other parts of the sandbox so they can justify nerfing hi-sec and buffing nullsec industry. When you are talking about industry, buying and selling and building are the most important things to talk about.
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#945 - 2012-12-24 03:13:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Varius Xeral
The whole point is that there is a class of people that take it beyond the canned gameplay for everyone else. Some nullbear f1ing through fleets is no more significant than someone moving stuff around in hisec markets, I agree. However, the people who do create content for others generally tend not to do it in hisec, whether they do it in lowsec, WHs, or nullsec is unimportant.

This discussion really hits to the core of the issue in this thread, which is the call for a reinvigorating of the tools for content creation. If there was a bigger audience, I would be all for more market or contract functionality to facilitate the kind of gameplay VV creates. Unfortunately, that audience seems to be a slice of a slice of what could be reached with better lowsec and nullsec content, so I think that should be where the effort is currently concentrated. That said, I would never rule out a financial expansion down the road when much more important issues have been addressed; who knows how popular that might actually end up being when not contesting with a broken nullsec and a stillborn lowsec.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#946 - 2012-12-24 03:21:31 UTC
Tesal wrote:
[quote=Varius Xeral]They are debasing what happens in other parts of the sandbox so they can justify nerfing hi-sec and buffing nullsec industry. When you are talking about industry, buying and selling and building are the most important things to talk about.


It really isn't, that bolded part is just making an excuse to not talk about the very real risk:reward concerns with industry in highsec vs industry in other secs. I'd also be happy to have a more complex financial system in the game after all of the broken stuff has been fixed.

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

Tesal
#947 - 2012-12-24 03:36:32 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Tesal wrote:
[quote=Varius Xeral]They are debasing what happens in other parts of the sandbox so they can justify nerfing hi-sec and buffing nullsec industry. When you are talking about industry, buying and selling and building are the most important things to talk about.


It really isn't, that bolded part is just making an excuse to not talk about the very real risk:reward concerns with industry in highsec vs industry in other secs. I'd also be happy to have a more complex financial system in the game after all of the broken stuff has been fixed.


The risk reward argument falls flat because the reward in hi-sec industry is small, often items are put up below build cost. The intense competition keeps prices and profits low. The reward is in line with the risk. Buffing nullsec industry won't change low prices. Nerfing hi-sec severely would have negative consequences for the game such as inflation, as prices rise due to a lack of competition, and people quitting industry in hi-sec.
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#948 - 2012-12-24 03:36:43 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Tesal wrote:

I think what your grasping at is that somehow nullsec "content creators" such as your own alliance are more vital towards the continuation of the game than players in other parts of the sandbox. That isn't true.


It is true, I don't see "Player X trades a lot" as a headline in any of the actual news outlets.



I do not agree. A 160-man high-sec mining corp engaging in daily 40-50 ship mining ops, without firing a single weapon, generates plenty of pgc. Irrespective of what sec it is found in, cooperation needs to be rewarded and the quality of pgc isn't dependent upon the size or purpose of the ships being flown. Imo, creation of "content" is derived from player interaction, not location.

But as I still read through this topic, I keep wondering why Ethiopia has residents. Clearly a lack of resources hasn't caused an exodus of the populace. But when war threatens similar countries, numerous humanitarian crises arise as everyone tries to evacuate. Thus, security trumps resource availability.

So it still seems to me that a lack of resources (i.e. taking things "away" from high sec) will have virtually no effect on player circulation. It does nothing to better the game for the 71 percent of characters located in high sec now. All a hs nerf will do is reduce the quality of a high sec game for the majority of characters, further enrich null sov. holders, and it still does nothing to prevent null alts from afk mining whatever's left in high sec afterward. There's still going to be security and that matters most.

As security isn't even being discussed, only rewards, high sec exploitation will continue until there's nothing left of value.

Yonis Kador



La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#949 - 2012-12-24 03:59:29 UTC
Tesal wrote:

The risk reward argument falls flat because the reward in hi-sec industry is small, often items are put up below build cost. The intense competition keeps prices and profits low. The reward is in line with the risk. Buffing nullsec industry won't change low prices. Nerfing hi-sec severely would have negative consequences for the game such as inflation, as prices rise due to a lack of competition, and people quitting industry in hi-sec.


Yet the reward for highsec industry is still higher than the reward for nullsec industry. The argument does not fall flat. The risk is in highsec is zero yet the risk in nullsec is high. Prices rising are perfectly fine, prices going up do not automatically mean inflation is the cause. Once again someone trots out the "if highsec is nerfed people will quit" argument which has been defeated way too many times in this thread for me to get into it again so I'm going to leave it with a flat, you are wrong.

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

La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#950 - 2012-12-24 04:01:38 UTC
Yonis Kador wrote:
I do not agree. A 160-man high-sec mining corp engaging in daily 40-50 ship mining ops, without firing a single weapon, generates plenty of pgc. Irrespective of what sec it is found in, cooperation needs to be rewarded and the quality of pgc isn't dependent upon the size or purpose of the ships being flown. Imo, creation of "content" is derived from player interaction, not location.

But as I still read through this topic, I keep wondering why Ethiopia has residents. Clearly a lack of resources hasn't caused an exodus of the populace. But when war threatens similar countries, numerous humanitarian crises arise as everyone tries to evacuate. Thus, security trumps resource availability.

So it still seems to me that a lack of resources (i.e. taking things "away" from high sec) will have virtually no effect on player circulation. It does nothing to better the game for the 71 percent of characters located in high sec now. All a hs nerf will do is reduce the quality of a high sec game for the majority of characters, further enrich null sov. holders, and it still does nothing to prevent null alts from afk mining whatever's left in high sec afterward. There's still going to be security and that matters most.

As security isn't even being discussed, only rewards, high sec exploitation will continue until there's nothing left of value.

Yonis Kador


That's an interesting situation you brought up with Ethiopia but I see no citations of "player X mines/trades a lot" making any actual news outlet.

Null alts will go back to null when there is an incentive to do industry in null over industry in 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

Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#951 - 2012-12-24 04:02:02 UTC
Yonis Kador wrote:
A 160-man high-sec mining corp engaging in daily 40-50 ship mining ops, without firing a single weapon, generates plenty of pgc. Irrespective of what sec it is found in, cooperation needs to be rewarded and the quality of pgc isn't dependent upon the size or purpose of the ships being flown. Imo, creation of "content" is derived from player interaction, not location.


I would absolutely agree, if such a thing actually existed.

Strictly as a hypothetical, if the other security spaces ended up being utter failures due to some inherent gameplay flaw, I would be absolutely happy with a strictly hisec eve, if that gameplay was competitive and interactive. My fantasy for a nullsec revamp actually includes lowsec and hisec with the introduction of qualified farms and fields throughout the game as the baseline gameplay, where the more you as a collective grind space, the more that space is yours and the greater the benefits and control, qualified by the system security.

As it stands, the utter security of hisec leads to canned solo gameplay, where something of any significance rarely happens.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Tesal
#952 - 2012-12-24 04:11:35 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Tesal wrote:

The risk reward argument falls flat because the reward in hi-sec industry is small, often items are put up below build cost. The intense competition keeps prices and profits low. The reward is in line with the risk. Buffing nullsec industry won't change low prices. Nerfing hi-sec severely would have negative consequences for the game such as inflation, as prices rise due to a lack of competition, and people quitting industry in hi-sec.


Yet the reward for highsec industry is still higher than the reward for nullsec industry. The argument does not fall flat. The risk is in highsec is zero yet the risk in nullsec is high. Prices rising are perfectly fine, prices going up do not automatically mean inflation is the cause. Once again someone trots out the "if highsec is nerfed people will quit" argument which has been defeated way too many times in this thread for me to get into it again so I'm going to leave it with a flat, you are wrong.


The only way to buff nullsec industry would be to raise prices, Jita is too efficient and keeps prices low. Nullsec industry does suck. But it will continue to suck even if manufacturing slots were increased. The only way to raise prices would be to nerf hi-sec severely and as I have stated previously, that comes with its own set of problems.

The risk in hi-sec is losing money on what you produce. This happens a lot. People produce at a loss. Its an economic risk, not a safety risk. Its market PvP.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#953 - 2012-12-24 04:23:21 UTC
Tesal wrote:
The only way to buff nullsec industry would be to raise prices, Jita is too efficient and keeps prices low. Nullsec industry does suck. But it will continue to suck even if manufacturing slots were increased. The only way to raise prices would be to nerf hi-sec severely and as I have stated previously, that comes with its own set of problems.

The risk in hi-sec is losing money on what you produce. This happens a lot. People produce at a loss. Its an economic risk, not a safety risk. Its market PvP.


I think trade is fine. How about nerfing refine rates in highsec, making it cost more to rent slots in highsec, allowing people to do something akin to suicide ganking a job, how about a tax on industry in highsec. Those are all very viable ideas that don't allow promoting mudflation via avoiding nerfs and only buffing things. Those things coupled with fixing outposts, stations per system, and the POS revamp have the potential of revitalizing industry in all sec areas.

This is very relevant to you from the first page of the thread:

7) If High Sec were nerfed ship costs would increase massively and that is bad.

- The absolute price of ships doesn’t really matter, what matters is how much effort it takes to get set up with a ship that can compete, whether a battleship or a mining barge. With a more dynamic eco-system outside High Sec the barriers to entry for all professions would be lower and so the fact that an individual ship costs more would not matter.

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

Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#954 - 2012-12-24 04:26:30 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
Yonis Kador wrote:
A 160-man high-sec mining corp ... generates plenty of pgc.


I would absolutely agree, if such a thing actually existed.


They do exist. One just popped up in my region 2 jumps from low sec. Flying around, I see lots of 30-40-50 man mining corps, but not many that large. But they certainly exist. I'm not advocating for a high-sec EvE. Or even a safe EvE. (In fact I'd argue against both.) I'm just saying that those players do contribute to pgc and that pgc doesn't only occur in null. We are all just looking at interfaces pushing buttons. The kind of buttons matters far less than the fact that they're being pushed in a group.

YK
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#955 - 2012-12-24 04:30:56 UTC
I would add that a general absolute drop in power accessibility wouldn't be a bad thing. We aren't far off the height of incursions where everyone was throwing around t3 fleets, and BCs and below were effectively classed out of the game. That was almost a game-breaking peak of power creep, and we still aren't that far below that point. I wouldn't consider it a bad thing if the day to day pvp moved down from t2/pirate/t3, and the only time you saw a full t3 fleet was coming out of a WH (those guys deserve everything they get). The sky is afalling argument is really weak because a little tumble would generally do the game some good, especially now that the low end t1 ships are so ******* awesome.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#956 - 2012-12-24 04:34:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Varius Xeral
Yonis Kador wrote:
Varius Xeral wrote:
Yonis Kador wrote:
A 160-man high-sec mining corp ... generates plenty of pgc.


I would absolutely agree, if such a thing actually existed.


They do exist. One just popped up in my region 2 jumps from low sec. Flying around, I see lots of 30-40-50 man mining corps, but not many that large. But they certainly exist. I'm not advocating for a high-sec EvE. Or even a safe EvE. (In fact I'd argue against both.) I'm just saying that those players do contribute to pgc and that pgc doesn't only occur in null. We are all just looking at interfaces pushing buttons. The kind of buttons matters far less than the fact that they're being pushed in a group.


You snipped the important part about 50 man mining gangs, but whatever. The point is hisec gameplay does not lead to interaction or elaboration because it is so safe. It leads to mindless canned grinding, and multi-boxing in lieu of cooperation (why share when you don't need your "partners" to be fully functional human beings?)

Your main point that fifty man (not account) mining gangs create content is absolutely and completely valid and correct. That's what we all want; and I personally don't give a **** where it happens, I just don't believe that hisec currently lends to that or rewards it.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#957 - 2012-12-24 04:45:50 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:


The point is hisec gameplay does not lead to interaction or elaboration because it is so safe. It leads to mindless canned grinding, and multi-boxing in lieu of cooperation (why share when you don't need your "partners" to be fully functional human beings?)


If players only want to multi-box in lieu of cooperation why join a 160 man mining corp? Much less one with a manditory weekly op to fund the corp? Why join a corp at all? Wars are waged in high sec, resources are fought over, and conflict arises (Id argue perhaps even more frequently than in some pretty peaceful null alliances) - just on a smaller scale. The scale does not invalidate their contribution to the game or to each other's game.

YK
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#958 - 2012-12-24 04:51:48 UTC
You're suggesting it happens on a significant scale, I'm suggesting it doesn't. I won't get into an anecdotal or poor evidence flinging contest, so I welcome you to put out convincing evidence, which I will admit I don't have, or agree to disagree.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Tesal
#959 - 2012-12-24 04:59:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Tesal
La Nariz wrote:
Tesal wrote:
The only way to buff nullsec industry would be to raise prices, Jita is too efficient and keeps prices low. Nullsec industry does suck. But it will continue to suck even if manufacturing slots were increased. The only way to raise prices would be to nerf hi-sec severely and as I have stated previously, that comes with its own set of problems.

The risk in hi-sec is losing money on what you produce. This happens a lot. People produce at a loss. Its an economic risk, not a safety risk. Its market PvP.


I think trade is fine. How about nerfing refine rates in highsec, making it cost more to rent slots in highsec, allowing people to do something akin to suicide ganking a job, how about a tax on industry in highsec. Those are all very viable ideas that don't allow promoting mudflation via avoiding nerfs and only buffing things. Those things coupled with fixing outposts, stations per system, and the POS revamp have the potential of revitalizing industry in all sec areas.

This is very relevant to you from the first page of the thread:

7) If High Sec were nerfed ship costs would increase massively and that is bad.

- The absolute price of ships doesn’t really matter, what matters is how much effort it takes to get set up with a ship that can compete, whether a battleship or a mining barge. With a more dynamic eco-system outside High Sec the barriers to entry for all professions would be lower and so the fact that an individual ship costs more would not matter.



Your proposals, if they went forward, would definitely raise prices and null would consider itself buffed and hi-sec nerfed. I doubt it would have any effect on average players other than making things more expensive, so you have to grind more to afford the same thing. If hi-sec can't compete people won't build there any more. The people in hi-sec would have no choice other than to move to null to continue their industrial activities or unsub their industrial characters.

Your proposals would also place industry firmly within the grasp of established nullsec alliances, shifting profits to them and away from hi-sec. I would view that as a negative thing. Nullsec is run by giant blue blobs and this would centralize even more power in their hands. In my view, nullsec is broken and this would make it even more broken. I would much rather have things the way they are than to change things as you have proposed.

I would also ask the larger philosophical question why is it necessary to shift industry to nullsec. The same things would be produced and in some cases it would even be the same alts producing the same stuff. The only thing that would be different would be the location. There is nothing stopping anyone from producing the same goods in hi-sec. What is the overriding concern that would make it necessary to shift locations for production, according to the economy it doesn't matter where it gets produced as long as it gets produced.. In my view its an irrational desire that necessitates the switching of location. It would only serve to make logistics harder and goods more expensive.

*edit* I don't buy the idea that making things more expensive doesn't matter.
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#960 - 2012-12-24 05:09:51 UTC
Then you should try reading the threads you're supposedly responding to. Right now the vast majority of industry is totally canned and creates no greater content beyond itself. By making it rewarding to do industry where people want to live and forcing chains to open themselves up to disruption or attack if they want to be competitive, the current mundane production of goods becomes a source of content. Your suggestion that the biggest risk in industry is that people might sell at below the cost to produce is the most blatant proof of its utter dysfunction one could ask for.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal