EVE General Discussion

RL macroeconomics don't work that well on RL economies anyway.

haha touche

a worthy addendum

I do not believe that the not nice (PVPer's) low and null-sec people should have the same advantages as the nice (PVE's) high-sec people.
The high-sec people live good moral lives and don't go around shooting and just generally griefing others.
They should be rewarded for that.

The low-sec and null-sec people have ruined their part of the sandbox and should not be allowed to ruin the rest of the sandbox for others. If you feel that high-sec has such massive advantages then mend your ways and you to can have those advantages.

Or just accept that the disadvantages that you have to endure are the fruits of you evil ways.

I agree, it did seem rather marginal. Perhaps a 5% tax on high-sec transactions would be more "incentive"?

It would have to be high enough that it allows builders to make enough profit to make the risks worthwhile after accounting for potential losses while having prices still be low enough compared to highsec prices to entice buyers to brave those same dangers.

So thinking about it, what would it take in price difference for you to go to a lowsec Jita while NOT looking for PvP and wanting to make it through unscathed? 5%? Not for me. Typical lowsec without heavy population or draw needs 10% to be worth thinking about. And a lowsec trade hub? With the heightened traffic likely bringing with it more combat PvP when that is what buyers and sellers are not looking for when conducting their business, it would need to be considerably higher still.

But those are my personal thoughts, and that worth is subjective for each person looking at that decision.

I never said anything about forcing anyone. I gave an analysis of your incentive and found it lacking. 1% isn't going to have a strong draw for either party considering the risks involved.

Highsec PVE industry corp CEO reporting in. How many people just cringed? Heh heh.

One of the most obnoxious things I have to do almost every time I recruit a new player is explain why we will never move into lowsec. New players are interested in doing this in my experience almost all the time. I support them doing it, but explain that if industry is there preferred playstyle that it will never be worth it. This is fundamentally wrong and needs to be changed, and I’m tired of people on the forums deciding that their (whiney) voice is the voice of all PVE players across the game.

How this can change is up for debate obviously, but it needs to. Taxes are one way to go, nerfing highsec refine rates is another option I would be okay with. Both in conjunction would be okay. In highsec I have the most powerful mercenary corp in the game protecting me from harm at all times, and yet my corp pays nothing for this glorious service. You can’t just buff lowsec and nullsec to make them compete imo. If that were to happen, all of the PVE players in highsec would just whine more about how much longer they have to mindlessly chew ore to supply their six accounts with PLEX because of the inflation it would probably cause.

A nerf is needed; what should be nerfed or how is beyond me as I am relatively inexperienced in anything outside of lvl 4 mission running and minor industry activities. I do know that if it came down to it and we actually could make a move to lowsec and be viable, I’m in contact with 3-4 other highsec PVE CEOs who would probably be game to merge into one corp. If it took amassing more players into larger corps with more capability to defend themselves, I would make that change and give up my fancy little title.

TL;DR tired of my “voice” on the forums being whiney PVErs who refuse to acknowledge change is needed. I’m the CEO of a corp with newbs who would be happy to mine/produce/live in lowsec if there was a reason to.

[Edit] formatting.

/emote wonders what npc corp tax rates are like.... sort of related.

but back on track.

Let's be fair.

If you call an ambulance, you have to pay for the ride.

So, when concord comes to save your ass, they should charge your ass.

That'd be keeping within the spirit of eve, eh?

Figure a base fee, perhaps divided by sec status of system, reflecting a stronger CONCORD presence in 1.0 systems, and thusly less deployment cost for the saving of your arse.

Then modify it by the value of whatever has to be shot down, or even the value of whatever is being protected. Since the client computes values of kill mails ( ala FW ), I would assume the former would be easier, and possibly more representive of the effort that had to be put forth by CONCORD in order to ensure the saving of the arse.

So, yea, great idea. CONCORD should charge folks for being rescued. And if they can't afford it, CONCORD should deny them protection until their bill is paid. Can't believe someone didn't suggest this sooner!

Posting in a...

In before...

Uhhh....

Uhh...

RAISE HIGHSEC TAXES!

I'd suggest not slapping on a 10% tax, at least to start with.

Slow increases, so you can see how the market reacts.

I did like a suggested change I saw, based off FW control. (people who are losing have to pay a little more)