These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

High Sec / Low Sec / Null Sec Truth in Relation.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Eight Two
SWIFT Inc.
#121 - 2012-12-19 05:47:27 UTC
Evei Shard wrote:
With the whole risk vs. reward thing that people keep talking about, I don't understand why Eve's manufacturing & refining is set up the way it is. You'd think that the "reward" for taking the "risk" of low/null would be better refining percentages, and more manufacturing ability.

Why do high-sec and null-sec have to be so dependent on each other in the first place?


Well it's not about risk/reward per se, it's Nullsec players are mad at the fact that Highsec dwellers have it so much easier in certain respects, and rightfully so in some instances.

However what I still fail to understand is why it has come to a nerf highsec campaign instead of asking CCP to provide the tools they need to be able to compete?

It's a "I dont have candy, take their candy too" situation, shouldn't it be "Give us the some candy too at least for working our butts of to make this a worthwhile place"?
Ocih
Space Mermaids
#122 - 2012-12-19 06:19:24 UTC
Eight Two wrote:
Evei Shard wrote:
With the whole risk vs. reward thing that people keep talking about, I don't understand why Eve's manufacturing & refining is set up the way it is. You'd think that the "reward" for taking the "risk" of low/null would be better refining percentages, and more manufacturing ability.

Why do high-sec and null-sec have to be so dependent on each other in the first place?


Well it's not about risk/reward per se, it's Nullsec players are mad at the fact that Highsec dwellers have it so much easier in certain respects, and rightfully so in some instances.

However what I still fail to understand is why it has come to a nerf highsec campaign instead of asking CCP to provide the tools they need to be able to compete?

It's a "I dont have candy, take their candy too" situation, shouldn't it be "Give us the some candy too at least for working our butts of to make this a worthwhile place"?


Null prefer to make HS more like Null Sec because making Null Sec more like High Sec comes with the reasons we don't have a productive Null sec. They know why Null is a wasteland, why it's a ghetto, why it has never been able to support itself. Every alliance that has ever built an Empire in EVE null sec knows full well, player enforced "rules" don't work and like poison in the blood, it only takes a little to bring the whole thing down. They don't want hard mechanics like High Sec and Concord, so they avoid asking for what High Sec has. Instead they whine, hoping to bring High Sec down to Null levels. Crab Bucket EVE.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#123 - 2012-12-19 07:48:57 UTC
Eight Two wrote:
Evei Shard wrote:
With the whole risk vs. reward thing that people keep talking about, I don't understand why Eve's manufacturing & refining is set up the way it is. You'd think that the "reward" for taking the "risk" of low/null would be better refining percentages, and more manufacturing ability.

Why do high-sec and null-sec have to be so dependent on each other in the first place?


Well it's not about risk/reward per se, it's Nullsec players are mad at the fact that Highsec dwellers have it so much easier in certain respects, and rightfully so in some instances.

However what I still fail to understand is why it has come to a nerf highsec campaign instead of asking CCP to provide the tools they need to be able to compete?

It's a "I dont have candy, take their candy too" situation, shouldn't it be "Give us the some candy too at least for working our butts of to make this a worthwhile place"?



Please can you show me this "nerf hi-sec" campaign? Because what I see is a "fix 0.0" campaign that some hi-sec dwellers are opposing with every rhetorical strawman trick in the book.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#124 - 2012-12-19 07:52:27 UTC
Ocih wrote:
Eight Two wrote:
Evei Shard wrote:
With the whole risk vs. reward thing that people keep talking about, I don't understand why Eve's manufacturing & refining is set up the way it is. You'd think that the "reward" for taking the "risk" of low/null would be better refining percentages, and more manufacturing ability.

Why do high-sec and null-sec have to be so dependent on each other in the first place?


Well it's not about risk/reward per se, it's Nullsec players are mad at the fact that Highsec dwellers have it so much easier in certain respects, and rightfully so in some instances.

However what I still fail to understand is why it has come to a nerf highsec campaign instead of asking CCP to provide the tools they need to be able to compete?

It's a "I dont have candy, take their candy too" situation, shouldn't it be "Give us the some candy too at least for working our butts of to make this a worthwhile place"?


Null prefer to make HS more like Null Sec because making Null Sec more like High Sec comes with the reasons we don't have a productive Null sec. They know why Null is a wasteland, why it's a ghetto, why it has never been able to support itself. Every alliance that has ever built an Empire in EVE null sec knows full well, player enforced "rules" don't work and like poison in the blood, it only takes a little to bring the whole thing down. They don't want hard mechanics like High Sec and Concord, so they avoid asking for what High Sec has. Instead they whine, hoping to bring High Sec down to Null levels. Crab Bucket EVE.

It's almost as if you had no idea what you were talking about.
Oh wait, not almost.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#125 - 2012-12-19 08:03:32 UTC
Ocih wrote:
Eight Two wrote:
Evei Shard wrote:
With the whole risk vs. reward thing that people keep talking about, I don't understand why Eve's manufacturing & refining is set up the way it is. You'd think that the "reward" for taking the "risk" of low/null would be better refining percentages, and more manufacturing ability.

Why do high-sec and null-sec have to be so dependent on each other in the first place?


Well it's not about risk/reward per se, it's Nullsec players are mad at the fact that Highsec dwellers have it so much easier in certain respects, and rightfully so in some instances.

However what I still fail to understand is why it has come to a nerf highsec campaign instead of asking CCP to provide the tools they need to be able to compete?

It's a "I dont have candy, take their candy too" situation, shouldn't it be "Give us the some candy too at least for working our butts of to make this a worthwhile place"?


Null prefer to make HS more like Null Sec because making Null Sec more like High Sec comes with the reasons we don't have a productive Null sec. They know why Null is a wasteland, why it's a ghetto, why it has never been able to support itself. Every alliance that has ever built an Empire in EVE null sec knows full well, player enforced "rules" don't work and like poison in the blood, it only takes a little to bring the whole thing down. They don't want hard mechanics like High Sec and Concord, so they avoid asking for what High Sec has. Instead they whine, hoping to bring High Sec down to Null levels. Crab Bucket EVE.

I like how you think CONCORD is a hard mechanic. And high-sec, too! Shocked

Now tell me about rules that don't work. Cool

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Eight Two
SWIFT Inc.
#126 - 2012-12-19 11:15:49 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


Please can you show me this "nerf hi-sec" campaign? Because what I see is a "fix 0.0" campaign that some hi-sec dwellers are opposing with every rhetorical strawman trick in the book.


Well and here's the problem, all of the "fix 0.0" suggestions that I have been seeing on here revolve around removing/taking stuff from highsec that would not be necessary with the proper mechanics/tools implemented for 0.0.

It's fighting windmills on a whole new level, but some of you guys seriously need to get the idea out of your heads to have all endgame content moved to 0.0, that's what I'm opposing. Simply nothing good has ever come from moving stuff from one sec region to the other in the past and nothing good will ever come of it in the future.

The bottom line is, if people want to do one thing only in one sec region then they should be able to do so and yes, that goes both ways. All there needs to be really is proper incentive with their own pros and cons for either of the options, not the current all pros on the highsec side for everything that doesn't involve PvP as in actively shooting someone without getting Concorded.

Don't get me wrong, there is some stuff that urgently needs to be looked at in highsec with regards to 0.0 balancing but the majority of the proposed "fixes" don't even remotely touch those flaws, DED and Tag farming come to my mind for instance.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#127 - 2012-12-19 11:19:10 UTC
Eight Two wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


Please can you show me this "nerf hi-sec" campaign? Because what I see is a "fix 0.0" campaign that some hi-sec dwellers are opposing with every rhetorical strawman trick in the book.


Well and here's the problem, all of the "fix 0.0" suggestions that I have been seeing on here revolve around removing/taking stuff from highsec that would not be necessary with the proper mechanics/tools implemented for 0.0.

It's fighting windmills on a whole new level, but some of you guys seriously need to get the idea out of your heads to have all endgame content moved to 0.0, that's what I'm opposing. Simply nothing good has ever come from moving stuff from one sec region to the other in the past and nothing good will ever come of it in the future.

The bottom line is, if people want to do one thing only in one sec region then they should be able to do so and yes, that goes both ways. All there needs to be really is proper incentive with their own pros and cons for either of the options, not the current all pros on the highsec side for everything that doesn't involve PvP as in actively shooting someone without getting Concorded.

Don't get me wrong, there is some stuff that urgently needs to be looked at in highsec with regards to 0.0 balancing but the majority of the proposed "fixes" don't even remotely touch those flaws, DED and Tag farming come to my mind for instance.



Perhaps you're not aware of my position on hi-sec. I wrote a thing on it that's pretty much the opposite of what you seem to assume.

I'd suggest assuming a little less, dialing back the confirmation bias, and look at what people are actually saying.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Eight Two
SWIFT Inc.
#128 - 2012-12-19 11:55:19 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


Perhaps you're not aware of my position on hi-sec. I wrote a thing on it that's pretty much the opposite of what you seem to assume.

I'd suggest assuming a little less, dialing back the confirmation bias, and look at what people are actually saying.


Classy, if you took the time to actually read the whole thread you would see we're on the same page and there is little to argue about. That involves what you are suggesting though.

Look at what people are actually saying.

Drop the condecending attitude. Believe it or not there's people that actually don't spend 24/7 reading these forums, let alone that giant trolling section that is the suggestion part. Some of us are just not interested in dealing with the teenagers there.

Its not anyone else's fault but yours if you come to a thread, call people out and and assume that they are automatically aware of your position on a topic. It may hurt a little but you're not that important.

We're on the same page when it comes to rebalancing, so are a lot of other people. The carebear coming into these threads crying about anything that would mean effort on his side is trolling just as much as the nullbear whining about how everyone else has it better than him.

Yet again we're spinning circles here without any result other than the usual you this - I that. Do you really even remotely expect CCP to come to any meaningful result with that? Roll

If people continue to be stubborn enough to sit on that high horse of theirs then don't excpect anything to come of this other than yet another broken patch with broken mechanics.

We urgently need meaningful fixes and not another little patch here and there that will fall apart at the slightest sign of any strain put on it.
Thomas Gore
Blackfyre Enterprise
#129 - 2012-12-19 12:12:22 UTC
Silivar Karkun wrote:
conclusion: the reason are the players, not the mechanics, a corporation wasnt planned to be a "solo guild" it was planned as a real community, build community then you can start to build a f*cking empire.


Mechanics are exactly the reason. CCP endorses multiboxing and having alts. They endorse every character in the world eventually learning every trade there is. You don't have to rely on anyone else if you got 3 accounts with 65M+ SP characters on each. You can do everything yourself.

People only group up with strangers (which most of your corpmates are, if you're in a big corp) to do stuff together if they are unable to do it by themselves. This is a fact that can be seen across all MMOs, not just EVE.

I would endorse a much more specialized approach. Skill point cap to start with. After that cap is met, you need to untrain one skill to learn a new. You wouldn't be locked into a certain profession forever, but you could not do everything yourself either. One character per account, one account per player (obviously some would break this rule, but at least they would be banned if found out multiboxing).

Not going to happen of course, as CCP would lose most of their paying accounts overnight.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#130 - 2012-12-19 12:16:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Malcanis wrote:

Perhaps you're not aware of my position on hi-sec. I wrote a thing on it that's pretty much the opposite of what you seem to assume.


I was unsubbed at the time of that writing.
I'd give a like if the thread would still be open.

It was also the Malcanis I liked the most, the totally unbiased guy with a signature showing his own so true law.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials