These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#1361 - 2012-12-27 20:26:11 UTC
Bump Truck, you hit on the brilliant part of EvE.

There's rules in highsec, but you are allowed to break the rules. It's not like WoW where if someone avoids being PvP flagged you absolutely can't touch them.

Ganking of "innocent civilians" can happen, and does.

It isn't enough for some, obviously, but that's their problem.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Lord MuffloN
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1362 - 2012-12-27 20:35:25 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:

Actually, she answered it better than I did.



Avoiding the question isn't an answer, it's what people looking for ways out do.
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#1363 - 2012-12-27 20:36:43 UTC
Lord MuffloN wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:

Actually, she answered it better than I did.



Avoiding the question isn't an answer, it's what people looking for ways out do.

Avoiding the answer doesn't make it go away.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Lord MuffloN
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1364 - 2012-12-27 20:43:29 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Suvetar
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Lord MuffloN wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:

Actually, she answered it better than I did.



Avoiding the question isn't an answer, it's what people looking for ways out do.

Avoiding the answer doesn't make it go away.


Edit: Snipped personal attack - ISD Suvetar

You see, picking and choosing what to answer is what someone who likes to drive their own agenda does, or someone who wants to avoid the hard questions, it's very much like politics in that regard.

Sure a point could be raised that there simply isn't enough time, but the person in this case took their sweet time to answer just about everything else, and once reminded to answer a good question, gives further non answers and simply implies there is some deep conspiracy beyond ****** quoting abilities by another poster and further ignores a very good question, but I mean, you'd know and realize that if there wasn't some cognitive dissonance inhibiting your from rational thought, here's an idea, sign up for local community college classes for logical thinking, it might do you good.

EDIT: And when confined into a argumentative debate, you can't simply go "LALALALALA" and put your fingers in your ears when your opposition asks something, it makes you look dumb, and by that I mean American congress dumb.

Were the reverse to happen you would no doubt hound any and all people who posts on "the other side" for an answer to that question, but "the other" side didn't **** up this time did they?
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#1365 - 2012-12-27 20:56:39 UTC
Well, clearly you *can* nerf highsec. It's just that all the suggestions from the Goon gallery have been poorly thought out crap.

In the process of dancing with the trolls I have personally suggested at least 3 ways that highsec could be nerfed in a practical way.

Since you ignored those I know you're just trolling, but there's a real conversation that's happened around you.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#1366 - 2012-12-27 21:05:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
La Nariz wrote:

2. That post basically says "I am afraid of CCP making a mistake, I am very risk-averse."


Had I been risk averse I would not swing trade (that is, buy and try predict what a market does in the next weeks, can lead to large gains but also to staggering losses), both in EvE and RL.

What I am totally averse to, is trusting CCP with the ability to pull a major game revolution in one swift swoop, without major screwups, major exploitable gaping holes and so on. Sure, the boot.ini days are long gone... yet the days of the "awesome inventory", "pizza targetting", "Forex FW", "hi sec incursions where group content has to reward more than solo" (group content that ended well! Roll) and so on are well modern and present.


La Nariz wrote:

Premise 1: Lobbies are bad, any arguments they make, no matter how cogent, are wrong.
Premise 2: A lobby is determined by the arbitrary number of people in it.
Premise 3: A lobby is determined by attempting to influence people.


1. Your assumed premises <> mine. Lobbies are lobbies, a group pushing their interests. "Bad" / "wrong" is irrelevant.

2. "Determined" is improper. A lobby effectiveness, 24/7 coverage, organization and weight is greatly enhanced by having the numbers.

3. "Determined" is improper. A lobby does attempt to influence people, it's what they do.

La Nariz wrote:

Conclusion: Anyone saying something I don't like is a lobby and therefore bad and their arguments are wrong.


Conclusion: your specific alliance case is lobbying CCP into drastically changing the game without bothering with the possible adverse consequence.


La Nariz wrote:

I can only assume you continue to try to point the conversation this way because there really isn't a good argument AGAINST nerfing highsec industry/buffing nullsec industry.


No, I point the conversation this way because I am stuffed of your alliance never ending complaints spamming months and months of forum posting. You cry like you are a 1 system holding sov being swamped by scores of evil casual players, while you are the richest and most prominent alliance TODAY, that is in your oh-so-pitiful status.

The fun thing - as I said now plenty of times - is that I agree with 75% of your points, yet for you 75% and 0% is the same. You demand 100% or nothing.


La Nariz wrote:

3 & 4 & 7 & 8. Every time you hint at some master plan by our "titanic" alliance its goonspiracy. That end summary there in your last post I responded to was all goonspiracy, less conspiracy more arguments against or for the proposed nerf highsec/buff nullsec industry.


Lobbying your already top dominant alliance power into a more dominant position is not goonspiracy (as in, some sort of colorful term to attach to random hi sec poasting). It's lobbying and some kind of plan is definitely there. If there wasn't, we'd not have a concerted number of aptly themed blogs on mittani.com while at the same time the same heads are talking on the EvE forums about the same topics again and again.

I am being generous here, because if you really don't have a plan but are genuinely and independently incessantly crying since months on 2-3 websites then your alliance makes me boggle. The most powerful and influential, those with the most of everything act like the poor orphan children abandoned in the streets.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Lord MuffloN
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1367 - 2012-12-27 21:45:08 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Well, clearly you *can* nerf highsec. It's just that all the suggestions from the Goon gallery have been poorly thought out crap.

In the process of dancing with the trolls I have personally suggested at least 3 ways that highsec could be nerfed in a practical way.

Since you ignored those I know you're just trolling, but there's a real conversation that's happened around you.


I did not ignore the comments, I'm simply answering to some of the more teeth gnashing things I've seen, and don't worry I've got a 3200 word+ monster baking in Word 2010 that's being passed around certain null sec and high sec industrialists to be published within the next few days, where and when is TBD.

That said I know my fellow brothers in the north are usually somewhat clever, some of them quite deviously so, and I find it hard to believe they would not come up with a single thing you agreed with, that said even despite reading this thread from start to finish I must've missed your suggestions.
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#1368 - 2012-12-27 22:33:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Buzzy Warstl
Highsec is about availability of basic features. My suggestions were to move more non-basic features out of highsec, while maintaining full availability of basic features.

I guess since I think that highsec should be able to support as many people as want to play there with full availability of resources if they are willing to dig a bit I didn't suggest anything that the high and mighty nullsec lords would consider a "nerf".

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Elrich Kouvo
Doomheim
#1369 - 2012-12-27 22:43:57 UTC
You could nerf high sec by removing war decs....
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1370 - 2012-12-27 23:49:49 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:


1. Had I been risk averse I would not swing trade (that is, buy and try predict what a market does in the next weeks, can lead to large gains but also to staggering losses), both in EvE and RL.

What I am totally averse to, is trusting CCP with the ability to pull a major game revolution in one swift swoop, without major screwups, major exploitable gaping holes and so on. Sure, the boot.ini days are long gone... yet the days of the "awesome inventory", "pizza targetting", "Forex FW", "hi sec incursions where group content has to reward more than solo" (group content that ended well! Roll) and so on are well modern and present.


2.
La Nariz wrote:

Premise 1: Lobbies are bad, any arguments they make, no matter how cogent, are wrong.
Premise 2: A lobby is determined by the arbitrary number of people in it.
Premise 3: A lobby is determined by attempting to influence people.


1. Your assumed premises <> mine. Lobbies are lobbies, a group pushing their interests. "Bad" / "wrong" is irrelevant.

2. "Determined" is improper. A lobby effectiveness, 24/7 coverage, organization and weight is greatly enhanced by having the numbers.

3. "Determined" is improper. A lobby does attempt to influence people, it's what they do.

La Nariz wrote:

Conclusion: Anyone saying something I don't like is a lobby and therefore bad and their arguments are wrong.


Conclusion: your specific alliance case is lobbying CCP into drastically changing the game without bothering with the possible adverse consequence.


3.
La Nariz wrote:

I can only assume you continue to try to point the conversation this way because there really isn't a good argument AGAINST nerfing highsec industry/buffing nullsec industry.


No, I point the conversation this way because I am stuffed of your alliance never ending complaints spamming months and months of forum posting. You cry like you are a 1 system holding sov being swamped by scores of evil casual players, while you are the richest and most prominent alliance TODAY, that is in your oh-so-pitiful status.

The fun thing - as I said now plenty of times - is that I agree with 75% of your points, yet for you 75% and 0% is the same. You demand 100% or nothing.


4.
La Nariz wrote:

3 & 4 & 7 & 8. Every time you hint at some master plan by our "titanic" alliance its goonspiracy. That end summary there in your last post I responded to was all goonspiracy, less conspiracy more arguments against or for the proposed nerf highsec/buff nullsec industry.


Lobbying your already top dominant alliance power into a more dominant position is not goonspiracy (as in, some sort of colorful term to attach to random hi sec poasting). It's lobbying and some kind of plan is definitely there. If there wasn't, we'd not have a concerted number of aptly themed blogs on mittani.com while at the same time the same heads are talking on the EvE forums about the same topics again and again.

I am being generous here, because if you really don't have a plan but are genuinely and independently incessantly crying since months on 2-3 websites then your alliance makes me boggle. The most powerful and influential, those with the most of everything act like the poor orphan children abandoned in the streets.


1. So you don't trust CCP to develop their own game and take it in their own direction whether it be for/against either of our positions.

2. You are the one that implicitly stated that lobbies are intrinsically bad and basically used that excuse to avoid answering several of my arguments. I just boiled your argument down to its simplest parts to show how terrible they are. The premises are "proper" and phrased correctly for the argument you've been using in an attempt to avoid answering other points.

3. So you point the conversation this direct because you hate goons. Okay well that at least shows your reason for the continued :foxnews:. You don't point the argument this way because you have a well reasoned argument against nerfing highsec industry and buffing nullsec industry.

4. Here it comes please show me your board with pictures thumb tacked to it and yarn stringing from picture to picture around the display. Yes its the goon illuminati/NWO/bilderburger group/freemasons that control all of EVE and have secret plots shaping the game to our tastes Roll. Do you need more tinfoil for that hat Lol? Its a real issue that people care about otherwise there would not be several threads relating to it popping up. I think you are doing a big correlation = causation here, you see all of these happenings at once and instead of seeing a positive correlation between goon involvement and industrial problems you go "GOONS ARE THE PROBLEM THEY ARE LOBBYING TO KILL EVE." Can you start a different thread devoted to goonspiracy and put all your "OH MY GOD THE GOON LOBBY IS DOING THIS THERE CANT POSSIBLY BE GOONS THAT LIKE INDUSTRY AND WANT IT TO BE BALANCED" posts in that thread.

I've said it before, the answer to all of your goonspiracy crap. There are 10,000 of us, you can't possible think that there won't be any of us who do industry and have to deal with the highsec superiority when it comes to industry. There is no lobby.

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
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1371 - 2012-12-28 00:10:09 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
4. Here it comes please show me your board with pictures thumb tacked to it and yarn stringing from picture to picture around the display. Yes its the goon illuminati/NWO/bilderburger group/freemasons that control all of EVE and have secret plots shaping the game to our tastes Roll. Do you need more tinfoil for that hat Lol? Its a real issue that people care about otherwise there would not be several threads relating to it popping up. I think you are doing a big correlation = causation here, you see all of these happenings at once and instead of seeing a positive correlation between goon involvement and industrial problems you go "GOONS ARE THE PROBLEM THEY ARE LOBBYING TO KILL EVE." Can you start a different thread devoted to goonspiracy and put all your "OH MY GOD THE GOON LOBBY IS DOING THIS THERE CANT POSSIBLY BE GOONS THAT LIKE INDUSTRY AND WANT IT TO BE BALANCED" posts in that thread.

I've said it before, the answer to all of your goonspiracy crap. There are 10,000 of us, you can't possible think that there won't be any of us who do industry and have to deal with the highsec superiority when it comes to industry. There is no lobby.

What color of yarn? This is really important. If it isn't pink I will be very disappointed in you. CONCORD likes pink.

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
#1372 - 2012-12-28 01:16:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
La Nariz wrote:

1. So you don't trust CCP to develop their own game and take it in their own direction whether it be for/against either of our positions.


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.


La Nariz wrote:

2. You are the one that implicitly stated that lobbies are intrinsically bad and basically used that excuse to avoid answering several of my arguments. I just boiled your argument down to its simplest parts to show how terrible they are. The premises are "proper" and phrased correctly for the argument you've been using in an attempt to avoid answering other points.


From the definition,

"The ethics and morality of lobbying are dual-edged. Lobbying is often spoken of with contempt, when the implication is that people with inordinate socioeconomic power are corrupting the law (twisting it away from fairness) in order to serve their own conflict of interest."

It's not lobbying as a concept per se, it's *your* lobbying that I don't agree with.


La Nariz wrote:

3. So you point the conversation this direct because you hate goons. Okay well that at least shows your reason for the continued :foxnews:. You don't point the argument this way because you have a well reasoned argument against nerfing highsec industry and buffing nullsec industry.


I don't hate goons, I don't like every people who want to take an old game and flip it upside down without looking ahead enough to see the risks and consequences. Plus you have an history of "breaking stuff and getting it nerfed" because you just could not refrain from pushing whatever mechanic to beyond absurd levels.


La Nariz wrote:

4. Here it comes please show me your board with pictures thumb tacked to it and yarn stringing from picture to picture around the display. Yes its the goon illuminati/NWO/bilderburger group/freemasons that control all of EVE and have secret plots shaping the game to our tastes Roll.


You don't even need a coherent plan. You expand filling everywhere like a big blob of the old movies and what you don't like, you start campaigns to have it changed. Once again, there's really nothing so colorful or "Bilderberg" about what you do. It's just self interest and corporate expansion.

It's even understandable, most would do what you do in your place (with a less ideological approach). But you can't stop yourselves before you go too far, it's CCP's duty to do so. And they have done that several times now, kinda proving my thesis again and again.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1373 - 2012-12-28 01:44:51 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

1. 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.

2. It's not lobbying as a concept per se, it's *your* lobbying that I don't agree with.

3. I don't hate goons, I don't like every people who want to take an old game and flip it upside down without looking ahead enough to see the risks and consequences. Plus you have an history of "breaking stuff and getting it nerfed" because you just could not refrain from pushing whatever mechanic to beyond absurd levels.

4. You don't even need a coherent plan. You expand filling everywhere like a big blob of the old movies and what you don't like, you start campaigns to have it changed. Once again, there's really nothing so colorful or "Bilderberg" about what you do. It's just self interest and corporate expansion.

5. It's even understandable, most would do what you do in your place (with a less ideological approach). But you can't stop yourselves before you go too far, it's CCP's duty to do so. And they have done that several times now, kinda proving my thesis again and again.


1. Fear of change, this isn't a reason to keep the game horribly unbalanced.

2. So my non-existant lobby isn't okay because you don't like it.

3. So I am not qualified to advocate for these things because my perception of the future is in error. You are the only all-knowing oracle, taught by Paul Atreides himself, I suppose you had to drink worm vomit to gain this amazing power too.

4 & 5. Trying to intellectualize goonspiracy, lol. Let me toss another relevant detail to this at you. How many of us have posted in this thread? How many of us are there in total? Consider that if we really wanted to inundate you with goons there are plenty of people who cannot help but post who would do so.

You still refuse to answer the simple, do you honestly think out of 10,000 of us that there are no goons interested in industry? That there are none of us who would like to see industry balanced across the sec areas?

E: Above all you realize that aside from point 1 you make no arguments and everything you post boils down to goonspiracy or accusations?

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
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1374 - 2012-12-28 01:49:07 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
4 & 5. Trying to intellectualize goonspiracy, lol. Let me toss another relevant detail to this at you. How many of us have posted in this thread? How many of us are there in total? Consider that if we really wanted to inundate you with goons there are plenty of people who cannot help but post who would do so.

You still refuse to answer the simple, do you honestly think out of 10,000 of us that there are no goons interested in industry? That there are none of us who would like to see industry balanced across the sec areas?

E: Above all you realize that aside from point 1 you make no arguments and everything you post boils down to goonspiracy or accusations?

All the goons, posting CTA now

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 ?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1375 - 2012-12-28 05:26:08 UTC
Malphilos wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
WHY shouldn't they be able to?


Because that would allow a situation even worse than we have now, where: not only is null monolithic, but there's no place a meaningful threat could be mounted from.


Null isn't monolithic and never will be. Duolithic, possibly.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1376 - 2012-12-28 05:27:09 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
So, Buddy: Why shouldn't players be able to build a better civilisation than NPCs? Are you able to answer this question?

Because CCP, in their limited wisdom, designed a game where every decision that would have allowed that to be the case has been answered with "the NPC's will always have an advantage".



So what is is what should be? EVE is a perfect, unchangable monolith that can't be altered in anyway from its original flawless conception?

Also, from where I'm sitting, EVE's lore and design seems to be predicated on the idea that capsuleers are virtually gods compared to those who aren't, and that CCP has been slowly but surely removing NPC monopolies for half a decade. Why should they stop now? What on earth makes you think they will?

EDIT: And your answer isn't an answer. It boils don't to "players shouldn't be able to build a better empire than the NPC because players can't build a better empire than the NPCs".

WHY shouldn't they be able to?

You obviously stopped at the portion you quoted, because I answer that as well as possible there.

The short form "because that would be a different game, call me when you find it."



You mean like the difference between EVE with CONCORD in hi-sec and EVE without it?

Because CCP didn't let a difference of that mangitude stop them.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1377 - 2012-12-28 05:29:14 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Right. People play EvE as it currently exists for the most part because it is the game they want to play (warts and all).



Counterpoint: EVE has never stopped changing. Therefore people play EVE in the knowledge and expectation that the game will change, which is why they're here.

Ontology is fun!

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1378 - 2012-12-28 05:31:11 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Highsec is about availability of basic features. My suggestions were to move more non-basic features out of highsec, while maintaining full availability of basic features.

I guess since I think that highsec should be able to support as many people as want to play there with full availability of resources if they are willing to dig a bit I didn't suggest anything that the high and mighty nullsec lords would consider a "nerf".


No one is (seriously) suggesting that availability of basic features should be removed from hi-sec.

All we're asking is that some of them be vaible in 0.0 too.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Randolph Rothstein
whatever corp.
#1379 - 2012-12-28 05:49:35 UTC
i dont know if this has been done before and im certainly not gonna go through 70 pages,so if it was,feel free to ignore

lets make pros for each space:

high sec:
- industry obviously - including tax issues,station trading the whole circus
- transportation
- safety

low sec:
- carriers,titans,dreadnaughts - everybody wants to fly big ship,its the ultimate e-peen thing in the game
- moons
- exploration - high sec sites are often empty because of number of players doing them
- rats including complexes and easy access to pirate faction ships
- safety for two reasons - first if you look at the map the most ship/pod kills are in high sec,second because of density there are not a lot of people in low sec,id even argue that low sec is safer because of that but lets pretend they cancel each other
-i could add mining but because of hauling issues,its actually quite even - however if you have jumpfreighters low sec is better
-sovereignity - i think its pretty cool to have own space - but since it does nothing and only gives bragging rights that nobody cares about i wont count them

as you can see its 4:2 in favor of low sec

lets use another ranking - the three pillars of game - pvp,business,exploration

better pvp and exploration? - low sec
better industry? - high sec

its 2:1 for low sec again

now imagine you nerf high sec industry,so they are even with low sec - suddenly it would be 4:1 and 2:0 for low sec - how is that fair? be glad high sec people dont ask for low sec nerfs regarding rats or supercapitals

and the best part is that it makes all the sense in the world,because it was designed by human ,eve is a copy of the world we live in,props to devs for making logical system,it was all designed to make sense - Gallente are french,Caldari are finnish or whatever the fck those names come from,raven has wings,fenrir and ragnarok are from norse mythology and industry was made to be in high sec and pvp in low sec - if you dont follow the rules you will pay extra

- why dont you have expeditions in the middle of Paris? because there is no need to - you have exploration happening in wilderness where few ppl dare to go
- where do you build factories? certainly not in the middle of civil war Sudan
- where do you fight wars? not in the middle of new york

actually it makes even more sense when you realize eve is economy simulator,just like the real world - imagine eve being pvp game primarly,what would happen? high sec players would want to nerf low sec rats and want more pvp oportunities in high sec Lol...

human history consists of constant war over borders from greece,egypt,persia,rome to ottoman empire,napoleon and nazi germany - but since then there have only been local conflicts,the borders are pretty much set in stone because people have figured out that its better to make money than to fight world wars - just like lowsec has its territory conquered,maybe few years ago eve was primarly pvp game,its not anymore, its economy simulation just like our real world and its surprise surprise player driven economy...

the reasons your suggestions will never be satisfied:

1. its not how it works in real world which is the source of devs ideas,its illogical to ask cocacola to build a factory in afghanistan desert

2. you are not entitled to expect anything more in lowsec that you already have - you have titans,moons,exploration,pvp - just because you were fighting for it,you have no right to expect even more because your 15 bucks have the same value as those of a miner mining 24/7 in high sec,you were maybe told by friends that you are tough and because of that you have to want more,but ccp accountants see just those 15 bucks

i expect arguments like you make more money in high sec and its not fair etc. - yes you do,just like you make more money on wall street than in the amazon even tho amazon is more dangerous,it works because it was designed to work like that -also shame on you for reducing eve to just iskmaking game,its pathetic,broaden your horizons people...

chapeau to devs for making interesting world simulation...with spaceships Cool
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1380 - 2012-12-28 05:57:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Randolph Rothstein wrote:
i dont know if this has been done before and im certainly not gonna go through 70 pages,so if it was,feel free to ignore

lets make pros for each space:

high sec:
- industry obviously - including tax issues,station trading the whole circus
- transportation
- safety

low sec:
- carriers,titans,dreadnaughts - everybody wants to fly big ship,its the ultimate e-peen thing in the game
- moons
- exploration - high sec sites are often empty because of number of players doing them
- rats including complexes and easy access to pirate faction ships
- safety for two reasons - first if you look at the map the most ship/pod kills are in high sec,second because of density there are not a lot of people in low sec,id even argue that low sec is safer because of that but lets pretend they cancel each other
-i could add mining but because of hauling issues,its actually quite even - however if you have jumpfreighters low sec is better
-sovereignity - i think its pretty cool to have own space - but since it does nothing and only gives bragging rights that nobody cares about i wont count them

as you can see its 4:2 in favor of low sec...


You forgot a couple of pros for hi-sec

R&D
Invention
Trading (OK you included this one but you tried to roll it into "industry"; it deserves its own category)
Mining

Also if hi-sec exploration is so popular that the sites are regularly cleaned out, then how can you say that exploration isn't a hi-sec activity?

Lo-sec (by which I understand you to mean "everything that's not hi-sec") "safety" isn't safety; it's people being more god damb careful because it's dangerous. Calling "safety" an advantage of lo-sec is like calling a thin sheet of ice "the safest place to drive" because no one will drive on it, therefore there are no traffic incidents.

You can't claim that lo-sec has a ratting advantage with the number of missions being done in hisec. Come on now.

So the adjusted list looks like:

Hi-sec:
Industry
R&D
Invention
Trading
Mining
NPC-enforced safety
Transportation
Population

"Lo-sec"
Capitals
Moonmining (Can't do this in 0.4 space or w-space, remember)

That looks like 8:2 for hi-sec to me. Fair and balanced!

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016