These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Frying Doom
#1621 - 2012-12-29 12:43:40 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Bump Truck wrote:


What this leads to is the best strategy is to have 1-2 mining systems (hidden belts respawn 5 minutes after they are exhausted), a few ratting systems and as many moon-mining and PI systems as possible.

This means the larger(in terms of space held) an alliance is the more it thrives, as long as it has enough people to put up towers and PI.

I think this could be changed to a system where an unworked system is very costly, if you work a system a bit it costs you a little and if you work it a lot you get big rewards.

This would encourage empires to only own as much space as they could actively work, as otherwise they would go bankrupt.

Small, more compact, blocks would emerge, leading to more PVP opportunities and allowing new entrants in null to take 1-2 systems and make good money out of them.
Or it would facilitate an -A- style renter empire.
An activity-based sov system fixes some of the problems in 0.0, but secondary economic inferiority to highsec and lack of bottom-up income generation are also things that need to be fixed.

I must be in the twilight zone

I can say I do agree with that, while I believe some transportation nerf would have to occur I believe Null should be able to produce its own stuff. I also agree that top down income needs to die a bloody death.

And of course that Sov should be usage based.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1622 - 2012-12-29 12:50:33 UTC
Bump Truck wrote:

This is rather off topic but I think the size of the current null coalitions has a lot to do with how effort converts into reward currently in null.

If you put up some towers, fuel and empty them each month (a couple of hours work) you get a large amount of resources.

If you set up PI on some planets you get quite a lot for a few hours a month.

If you mine after a while the hidden belts open up and then you make more per hour.

If you rat you get anoms and DED spaces.

If you do nothing sov fees cost you a little.


What this leads to is the best strategy is to have 1-2 mining systems (hidden belts respawn 5 minutes after they are exhausted), a few ratting systems and as many moon-mining and PI systems as possible.

This means the larger(in terms of space held) an alliance is the more it thrives, as long as it has enough people to put up towers and PI.

I think this could be changed to a system where an unworked system is very costly, if you work a system a bit it costs you a little and if you work it a lot you get big rewards.

This would encourage empires to only own as much space as they could actively work, as otherwise they would go bankrupt.

Small, more compact, blocks would emerge, leading to more PVP opportunities and allowing new entrants in null to take 1-2 systems and make good money out of them.


[To put some numbers on it, (these are just an uneducated guess);

0-20 man hours per month, 15 Billion sov fees
20-100 hours, 1 bill
100+, no sov fees]



This is a very interesting idea actually. Question is though whether the big alliances would accept it.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1623 - 2012-12-29 16:50:51 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
Bump Truck wrote:

This is rather off topic but I think the size of the current null coalitions has a lot to do with how effort converts into reward currently in null.

If you put up some towers, fuel and empty them each month (a couple of hours work) you get a large amount of resources.

If you set up PI on some planets you get quite a lot for a few hours a month.

If you mine after a while the hidden belts open up and then you make more per hour.

If you rat you get anoms and DED spaces.

If you do nothing sov fees cost you a little.


What this leads to is the best strategy is to have 1-2 mining systems (hidden belts respawn 5 minutes after they are exhausted), a few ratting systems and as many moon-mining and PI systems as possible.

This means the larger(in terms of space held) an alliance is the more it thrives, as long as it has enough people to put up towers and PI.

I think this could be changed to a system where an unworked system is very costly, if you work a system a bit it costs you a little and if you work it a lot you get big rewards.

This would encourage empires to only own as much space as they could actively work, as otherwise they would go bankrupt.

Small, more compact, blocks would emerge, leading to more PVP opportunities and allowing new entrants in null to take 1-2 systems and make good money out of them.


[To put some numbers on it, (these are just an uneducated guess);

0-20 man hours per month, 15 Billion sov fees
20-100 hours, 1 bill
100+, no sov fees]



This is a very interesting idea actually. Question is though whether the big alliances would accept it.


Tying the upkeep of a system to an index (presumably, the highest index present, whether that's military, industrial, or one of the unimplemented ones in the database such as Economic) is interesting, at least. Problem with it is there are many reasons for systems an entity owns to never get touched. Jump bridge links (they're not going away no matter how much some people don't like them) cyno beacon midpoint systems, etc. Those sorts of things are important, especially to a group living in the "ass end" of places. Querious, for example, absolutely requires one or more midpoints for jump capable ships to reach empire, and the same applies for many other regions in the game. Yet by necessity they're removed from the main areas of your space, which means players would be less likely to go out there and, if they do, are more cut off from aide from allies if attacked. These structures already add a fairly significant cost to the sovereignty bill of the system - this mechanism would increase the cost even more.

Might be other problems with the idea, I haven't thought about it too much. But it potentially has merit.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Qolde
Comms Black
Pandemic Horde
#1624 - 2012-12-29 20:39:32 UTC
My Ultimate balance post:
First of all:
Change ore layouts so that mining in lowsec and nullsec become a requirement to the game.
1.0-0.8 = ONLY veldspar. 1.0 vanilla veld, 0.9 +5% veld, 0.8 +10% veld
0.7-0.5 = +10%veld and 0.7 regular scord, 0.6 +5% scord, 0.5 +10% scord.
make the roids deplete faster like they did before that mining bot buff. (now people wont sit in 1.0's anyway because it has only regular veld.

lowsec should have all the midgrade ores, laid out similarly to how the veld and scord are.

every null system should have some form of ore that drops zyd and mega, but which type depends on truesec of course. maybe introduce a baby mercoxit too, so 0.0 is simply better mining than low and high. period. possibly even increase the material requirements of mids and lows a bit since theres so much more null than high and low.

This would entice all but the lamest carebears to at least become better at the game somehow. They'd ***** and moan, but they'd still be able to mine in hisec undisturbed and we wouldnt have 8 isk trit anymore.

Secondly, make more lowsec gates, and break more hisec gates so that travelling through hisec sucks even more, and lowsec travel becomes more attractive, with shorter routes, and less chance of running into a gate camp. Possibly make gate radii in lowsec only even bigger, so that even if a gatecamp is there, there's a better chance theyre out of range.

Thirdly, a sliding tax rate should be put in place on every NPC station. The higher the volume of the station, the higher the NPC tax rate becomes, just like any sane city or store would do. They have the bargaining power and they will take their cut. anywhere from 0.5% to 20%.

Allow corporations to "tax" any player refined ore, and put it in deliveries hangar. NPC corps take 11% by default like they do for missions. Allow coporations to do the same with LP's 11%. Suddenly miners become a meaningful contribution to a lowsec/nullsec corp. Instead of just requiring babysitting, They are actively putting in assets just like ratters, mission runners and pvpers. Allow corporations to tax market trades as well like before. Make the default 5%. Goodbye NPC corp trading alts.

Make freighters in NPC corps go at half speed. Aligning AND warping. Twisted

Double factory slots in lowsec/nullsec and POSes. Give them a bonus to speed and cost, tied to truesec. All these suggestions are only slight nudges that make sense in terms of risk an reward. CCP could implement them one at a time each month and make the game tremendously better within a year.

If someone craps in your sandbox: 1. Light it on fire 2. Grab your shovel 3. Throw it back at them.
Aditu Riraille
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1625 - 2012-12-29 21:39:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Aditu Riraille
nm, it blew out my whole reply. X

"We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time." T. S. Eliot   
Frying Doom
#1626 - 2012-12-29 22:03:27 UTC
Qolde wrote:
My Ultimate balance post:
First of all:
Change ore layouts so that mining in lowsec and nullsec become a requirement to the game.
1.0-0.8 = ONLY veldspar. 1.0 vanilla veld, 0.9 +5% veld, 0.8 +10% veld
0.7-0.5 = +10%veld and 0.7 regular scord, 0.6 +5% scord, 0.5 +10% scord.
make the roids deplete faster like they did before that mining bot buff. (now people wont sit in 1.0's anyway because it has only regular veld.

lowsec should have all the midgrade ores, laid out similarly to how the veld and scord are.

every null system should have some form of ore that drops zyd and mega, but which type depends on truesec of course. maybe introduce a baby mercoxit too, so 0.0 is simply better mining than low and high. period. possibly even increase the material requirements of mids and lows a bit since theres so much more null than high and low.

This would entice all but the lamest carebears to at least become better at the game somehow. They'd ***** and moan, but they'd still be able to mine in hisec undisturbed and we wouldnt have 8 isk trit anymore.

Secondly, make more lowsec gates, and break more hisec gates so that travelling through hisec sucks even more, and lowsec travel becomes more attractive, with shorter routes, and less chance of running into a gate camp. Possibly make gate radii in lowsec only even bigger, so that even if a gatecamp is there, there's a better chance theyre out of range.

Thirdly, a sliding tax rate should be put in place on every NPC station. The higher the volume of the station, the higher the NPC tax rate becomes, just like any sane city or store would do. They have the bargaining power and they will take their cut. anywhere from 0.5% to 20%.

Allow corporations to "tax" any player refined ore, and put it in deliveries hangar. NPC corps take 11% by default like they do for missions. Allow coporations to do the same with LP's 11%. Suddenly miners become a meaningful contribution to a lowsec/nullsec corp. Instead of just requiring babysitting, They are actively putting in assets just like ratters, mission runners and pvpers. Allow corporations to tax market trades as well like before. Make the default 5%. Goodbye NPC corp trading alts.

Make freighters in NPC corps go at half speed. Aligning AND warping. Twisted

Double factory slots in lowsec/nullsec and POSes. Give them a bonus to speed and cost, tied to truesec. All these suggestions are only slight nudges that make sense in terms of risk an reward. CCP could implement them one at a time each month and make the game tremendously better within a year.

Oh look another I think miners should go find another game post.

Very helpful.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#1627 - 2012-12-29 22:09:47 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
Bump Truck wrote:

This is rather off topic but I think the size of the current null coalitions has a lot to do with how effort converts into reward currently in null.

If you put up some towers, fuel and empty them each month (a couple of hours work) you get a large amount of resources.

If you set up PI on some planets you get quite a lot for a few hours a month.

If you mine after a while the hidden belts open up and then you make more per hour.

If you rat you get anoms and DED spaces.

If you do nothing sov fees cost you a little.


What this leads to is the best strategy is to have 1-2 mining systems (hidden belts respawn 5 minutes after they are exhausted), a few ratting systems and as many moon-mining and PI systems as possible.

This means the larger(in terms of space held) an alliance is the more it thrives, as long as it has enough people to put up towers and PI.

I think this could be changed to a system where an unworked system is very costly, if you work a system a bit it costs you a little and if you work it a lot you get big rewards.

This would encourage empires to only own as much space as they could actively work, as otherwise they would go bankrupt.

Small, more compact, blocks would emerge, leading to more PVP opportunities and allowing new entrants in null to take 1-2 systems and make good money out of them.


[To put some numbers on it, (these are just an uneducated guess);

0-20 man hours per month, 15 Billion sov fees
20-100 hours, 1 bill
100+, no sov fees]



This is a very interesting idea actually. Question is though whether the big alliances would accept it.


Tying the upkeep of a system to an index (presumably, the highest index present, whether that's military, industrial, or one of the unimplemented ones in the database such as Economic) is interesting, at least. Problem with it is there are many reasons for systems an entity owns to never get touched. Jump bridge links (they're not going away no matter how much some people don't like them) cyno beacon midpoint systems, etc. Those sorts of things are important, especially to a group living in the "ass end" of places. Querious, for example, absolutely requires one or more midpoints for jump capable ships to reach empire, and the same applies for many other regions in the game. Yet by necessity they're removed from the main areas of your space, which means players would be less likely to go out there and, if they do, are more cut off from aide from allies if attacked. These structures already add a fairly significant cost to the sovereignty bill of the system - this mechanism would increase the cost even more.

Might be other problems with the idea, I haven't thought about it too much. But it potentially has merit.

So what your saying is that you want secure logistics to Hi-sec but do not believe you should need to pay for this above what a normal sov bill is.

But to do this industry restructuring properly Null needs to be isolated more from Hi-sec by reducing jump ranges otherwise it is just a suburb of Hi-sec and the industry re-work will have to much effect on Hi-sec markets.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1628 - 2012-12-29 22:11:46 UTC
Reducing jump range just means they have to take more jumps, which is really only a problem for smaller alliances.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Frying Doom
#1629 - 2012-12-29 22:48:17 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Reducing jump range just means they have to take more jumps, which is really only a problem for smaller alliances.

Yes but it also means its not a couple of minutes and adds in extra vulnerability and cost to the supply chain.

I am all for Null industries and mining to be improved but if the end result is the removal of Hi-secs biggest market and a flooding of cheap goods from the provinces I think it will be too great a change on the games industry people.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1630 - 2012-12-30 01:31:55 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Reducing jump range just means they have to take more jumps, which is really only a problem for smaller alliances.

Yes but it also means its not a couple of minutes and adds in extra vulnerability and cost to the supply chain.


I'm not sure this is a good idea as it incentivizes having more super caps in order to use them as mobile jump bridges. I don't think incentives for supercap proliferation should tie in with industrial buffing.

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
Frying Doom
#1631 - 2012-12-30 01:42:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
La Nariz wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Reducing jump range just means they have to take more jumps, which is really only a problem for smaller alliances.

Yes but it also means its not a couple of minutes and adds in extra vulnerability and cost to the supply chain.


I'm not sure this is a good idea as it incentivizes having more super caps in order to use them as mobile jump bridges. I don't think incentives for supercap proliferation should tie in with industrial buffing.

If they chose to do it with more supers so be it.

It would at least mean that they have added a cost to increase their logistical performance and also increased their risk, so even though they are flooding the market the cost to do so is still increased.

EvE is about risk vs reward and given the current jump ranges the risk is insignificant given, the reward that would be obtained from an increased Null Industry(or as I prefer a buff of player owned facilities)

Plus don't you think that if Null has a bigger industry capability and Hi-sec minerals that a lot more supers will be built any way.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1632 - 2012-12-30 02:18:29 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:

If they chose to do it with more supers so be it.

It would at least mean that they have added a cost to increase their logistical performance and also increased their risk, so even though they are flooding the market the cost to do so is still increased.

EvE is about risk vs reward and given the current jump ranges the risk is insignificant given, the reward that would be obtained from an increased Null Industry(or as I prefer a buff of player owned facilities)

Plus don't you think that if Null has a bigger industry capability and Hi-sec minerals that a lot more supers will be built any way.


I'd agree with you if more supers were dieing daily as it is now we do not want to tie industry to a looming problem. Cost is not a good balancing factor as CCP has been made aware with supercaps. Making already arduous logistics even worse is also not a good idea. Perhaps replacing jump bridges with a one-way gate that has a certain range would be a good idea because then the entity has to choose where to deploy and if they fall for a feint it is very damaging. That last sentence has been proven false, Sobaseki has far more industrial capabilities than entire nullsec regions.

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
#1633 - 2012-12-30 02:22:58 UTC
I think it's great that everyone is focused on the "big picture."

That in the grand scheme of things, EvE is a capitalistic dystopia with chances for riches relative to risk and players aren't meant to live their entire lives in high-sec npc corps. They are meant to interact. So no sec space was ever meant to have "everything it needs."

But I'm still having difficulty agreeing that abilities I currently possess should be removed entirely from my game. That's not selfish - doing so would be dumb. So I'm just not gonna be a fan of moving t-2 production or perfect manufacturing/refining to low/null. Imo, if CCP allowed better refining and manufacturing even at high-sec POS's as opposed to heavily-taxed npc alternatives, this would still benefit pgc by incentivizing corp-ownership/membership. It also wouldn't remove any current abilities. Raising npc refine rates and corp taxes could be a good idea, if it would force more people into the sand. But that's only going to happen still if the cost of POS fuel is less isk/month than paying the tax. And that would be a lot of tax.

I'm not even sure if it's a legitimate concern or just null propoganda, but just in case it's being considered: don't "nerf" high sec too hard. People on one account paying with cash live there. So do noobs. Thousands of casual players. No, the game shouldn't cater to them but their games shouldn't be made impossible either. I suspect many folks in high sec pay their subs with cash. I'm guessing that matters.

Besides, there are countless mini-games individually contributing to pgc being played here all connected to each other through the sandbox. Every corp with people in it contributes to pgc. Wars are fought, resources are disputed, people are ganked....constantly in high sec. High sec generates a ton of pgc. In fact, post-Retribution pvp stats have to be up. I see people shooting each other constantly. So, to me, the size and location of the corp does not invalidate those players' contribution to pgc. I do agree that reward should scale with risk and I'm all for increasing player circulation if possible.

But I'm beginning to wonder if the community perception is that there is no more frontier. That null is wholly owned and if that itself is a factor in the perceived stagnation. Can nothing be added to null to awe and inspire the masses but industry slots and added wealth?

Must balancing risk/reward equate to loss of high-sec ability?


Yonis Kador
Frying Doom
#1634 - 2012-12-30 02:30:06 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

If they chose to do it with more supers so be it.

It would at least mean that they have added a cost to increase their logistical performance and also increased their risk, so even though they are flooding the market the cost to do so is still increased.

EvE is about risk vs reward and given the current jump ranges the risk is insignificant given, the reward that would be obtained from an increased Null Industry(or as I prefer a buff of player owned facilities)

Plus don't you think that if Null has a bigger industry capability and Hi-sec minerals that a lot more supers will be built any way.


I'd agree with you if more supers were dieing daily as it is now we do not want to tie industry to a looming problem. Cost is not a good balancing factor as CCP has been made aware with supercaps. Making already arduous logistics even worse is also not a good idea. Perhaps replacing jump bridges with a one-way gate that has a certain range would be a good idea because then the entity has to choose where to deploy and if they fall for a feint it is very damaging. That last sentence has been proven false, Sobaseki has far more industrial capabilities than entire nullsec regions.

Having to risk supers more for more bridging will hopefully allow them to die more.

I would hardly call the current the logistics arduous as with Hi-sec minerals in Null you would primarily be exporting not importing, and opening Nulls export capability to increased risk would be a good thing otherwise there is no reall way to expand Null secs mineral supply without a downside.

As to the last sentance "Plus don't you think that if Null has a bigger industry capability and Hi-sec minerals that a lot more supers will be built any way." how has that been proven wrong?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1635 - 2012-12-30 02:32:27 UTC
Yonis Kador wrote:

Must balancing risk/reward equate to loss of high-sec ability?


No but the added safety must be paid for. Hence the non-perfectness in highsec. You should still be able to do everything there, but you'll have to do some things in POS and you'll have to put up with taxes. Other than that I agree you shouldn't lose any capabilities.

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
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1636 - 2012-12-30 02:36:25 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

If they chose to do it with more supers so be it.

It would at least mean that they have added a cost to increase their logistical performance and also increased their risk, so even though they are flooding the market the cost to do so is still increased.

EvE is about risk vs reward and given the current jump ranges the risk is insignificant given, the reward that would be obtained from an increased Null Industry(or as I prefer a buff of player owned facilities)

Plus don't you think that if Null has a bigger industry capability and Hi-sec minerals that a lot more supers will be built any way.


I'd agree with you if more supers were dieing daily as it is now we do not want to tie industry to a looming problem. Cost is not a good balancing factor as CCP has been made aware with supercaps. Making already arduous logistics even worse is also not a good idea. Perhaps replacing jump bridges with a one-way gate that has a certain range would be a good idea because then the entity has to choose where to deploy and if they fall for a feint it is very damaging. That last sentence has been proven false, Sobaseki has far more industrial capabilities than entire nullsec regions.



I think the fear of nullsec really outproducing highsec is overblown. Supposing CCP made player made stations effectively identical to highsec stations. It would take years for nullsec players to build enough outposts to out do what is currently in highsec. Also, nullsec will never have the security that highsec does, so it will never be as easy to extract and move minerals as it is in highsec.
Frying Doom
#1637 - 2012-12-30 02:46:25 UTC
Yonis Kador wrote:
I think it's great that everyone is focused on the "big picture."

That in the grand scheme of things, EvE is a capitalistic dystopia with chances for riches relative to risk and players aren't meant to live their entire lives in high-sec npc corps. They are meant to interact. So no sec space was ever meant to have "everything it needs."

But I'm still having difficulty agreeing that abilities I currently possess should be removed entirely from my game. That's not selfish - doing so would be dumb. So I'm just not gonna be a fan of moving t-2 production or perfect manufacturing/refining to low/null. Imo, if CCP allowed better refining and manufacturing even at high-sec POS's as opposed to heavily-taxed npc alternatives, this would still benefit pgc by incentivizing corp-ownership/membership. It also wouldn't remove any current abilities. Raising npc refine rates and corp taxes could be a good idea, if it would force more people into the sand. But that's only going to happen still if the cost of POS fuel is less isk/month than paying the tax. And that would be a lot of tax.

I'm not even sure if it's a legitimate concern or just null propoganda, but just in case it's being considered: don't "nerf" high sec too hard. People on one account paying with cash live there. So do noobs. Thousands of casual players. No, the game shouldn't cater to them but their games shouldn't be made impossible either. I suspect many folks in high sec pay their subs with cash. I'm guessing that matters.

Besides, there are countless mini-games individually contributing to pgc being played here all connected to each other through the sandbox. Every corp with people in it contributes to pgc. Wars are fought, resources are disputed, people are ganked....constantly in high sec. High sec generates a ton of pgc. In fact, post-Retribution pvp stats have to be up. I see people shooting each other constantly. So, to me, the size and location of the corp does not invalidate those players' contribution to pgc. I do agree that reward should scale with risk and I'm all for increasing player circulation if possible.

But I'm beginning to wonder if the community perception is that there is no more frontier. That null is wholly owned and if that itself is a factor in the perceived stagnation. Can nothing be added to null to awe and inspire the masses but industry slots and added wealth?

Must balancing risk/reward equate to loss of high-sec ability?


Yonis Kador

Exactly, while NPC facilities everywhere need to be nerfed, player owned facilities are the way to go, and yes the more dangerous the space the better those facilities should be. With Lo-sec as a base and Hi-sec having the reputation drawback.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Tesal
#1638 - 2012-12-30 03:10:58 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:

Exactly, while NPC facilities everywhere need to be nerfed, player owned facilities are the way to go, and yes the more dangerous the space the better those facilities should be. With Lo-sec as a base and Hi-sec having the reputation drawback.

That would be a radical change. I don't think it would make the game more fun to play.
Frying Doom
#1639 - 2012-12-30 03:13:48 UTC
Tesal wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

Exactly, while NPC facilities everywhere need to be nerfed, player owned facilities are the way to go, and yes the more dangerous the space the better those facilities should be. With Lo-sec as a base and Hi-sec having the reputation drawback.

That would be a radical change. I don't think it would make the game more fun to play.

So your suggestion to improve industry in the more dangerous parts of EvE to make those areas more lucrative and profitable while not gutting Hi-sec would be?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#1640 - 2012-12-30 03:16:35 UTC
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:

I think the fear of nullsec really outproducing highsec is overblown. Supposing CCP made player made stations effectively identical to highsec stations. It would take years for nullsec players to build enough outposts to out do what is currently in highsec. Also, nullsec will never have the security that highsec does, so it will never be as easy to extract and move minerals as it is in highsec.



As well, nullsec will never produce more t1 goods than highsec because there will never be enough mineral production (mining) in nullsec to even come close to being self-sufficient. Even if you have incentives like higher-yield asteroids (within reason), the amount of people who want to be able to be semi-afk, or mine because it is "relaxing", or want a personal mining fleet will easily dwarf the amount of people who want to try nullsec. Lots of highseccers will never leave highsec no matter what, and they will still produce a staggering amount of minerals.

And if there ever is enough supply to make nullsec self-sufficient, CCP will finally have a good reason to remove mineral compression.

Nullsec can also serve as a pressure valve if highsec prices get too high, for example if there is another ice interdiction prices would only increase to the amount it would cost to produce the ice in nullsec and import it to highsec.