EVE General Discussion

This is exactly right, which is why I said that this was confirmed years ago and ignored by all of the high sec people claiming that high sec was 'safer' than null and that "plenty of pvp happens in high sec".

The truth is that despite having the 2nd lowest share of the game's character population (WHs are the lowest and more dangerous still, but only per capita) null sec has the highest share of destruction, as opposed to high sec (largest population, lowest share of the much needed economy driving destruction).

According to high sec people, playing the game in the one place where magical space police spawn to at least avenge you is somehow as dangerous as space that's only safe if another human being is next door to report into an intel channel.....

Only if you view "driving the economy" as destruction alone. But in fact, there are two sides driving the economy; destruction and production.

By the way, you can call losses in hi sec idiotic if that makes you feel any better. The fact is there is plenty of LOSS in hi sec. If you want to discard these losses on the basis that "those don't count because they're idiots" that's fine by me. But the FACT still STANDS.

Or let's look at this with your own goggles. You know what I consider idiotic? Jumping into a system with 10% TiDi knowing full well I'll be losing my capital. Should I discard those losses on the basis that it's an idiotic loss? . You people will find any excuse to distort data, and I mean ANY excuse.

Ah, the standard "it's all about me" high sec selfishness. Funny thing is, this sentiment is also why high sec can't seem to elect people to the CSM.



There is no law in real life that says people must pull their own weight. That fact doesn't stop people who are actually valuable to a community (workers) from being right about the uselessness of people who choose to leech off others (the welfare queens) for their own well being (and in this case, entertainment).



No, it's a communal entertainment activity where "the people who would rather build" choose to think of the people GIVING them a reason to build (pvpr's, null sec alliance members, gankers, pirates) as "psychopaths".



Where I'm from we call them like we see them. my disdain is not for hi sec (how does one disdain a series of imaginary soloar systems?) or even "carebears" (at this moment I am shooting Shadow so I can loot those damn reports for the 9 millionth time).

My disdain is for short sighted people who'd rather lie about whether or not a video game has an imbalance that creates poorer than acceptable outcomes (like high sec isk making alts) just because they are afraid (unjusti of making less imaginary space money from saving some hapless Damsel lol.

CCP and there economist a'ways say consumption is the engine that drives the EVE virtual economy.

1 sided wage slavery is never "symbioitic".

...what?

I don't care about tutorial missions, I care about the newbie or casual who wants to produce in EVE Online. Telling someone who wants to manufacture 'sorry a bunch of nerds who get up at 2am to reserve limited lines is preventing you from doing what you want to do' makes a pretty terrible game. NPC lines need to be the worst option in terms of profitability but they need to always be accessible. Accessibility is most important for gaining and retaining players. If there's someone out there with ten kids or something who just wants to log on a couple of hours a week, make a cruiser and generally bum around I don't want them prevented from doing so by hard limitations of 'NO SLOTS OPEN YOU MUST RENT OFF A PLAYER'

It won't matter that there are a lot of highsec NPC lines provided a greater degree of success can be gained using lowsec, NPC nullsec or player-owned lines. The guys who want to chill out and build things can do that without stress. The players who want to challenge themselves and succeed to a greater degree can do their thing, too.



Hell, no. I've already placed what towers I've owned in lowsec for operating cost and convenience despite having the standings to place them where I want in highsec. I don't care if it's established, telling someone 'if you want to do this thing you want to do, you need to do this completely unrelated thing for hours on end for no reason other than as a time sink / lore reasons' is bad design.

Same with jump clones. The whole mess is a barrier to fun. It's lovely that some players have setup some corps. But this tiny piece of emergent gameplay doesn't make up for the fact that grinding standings is a horrible stupid thing EVE demands players do for no real reason. The entire reason players are so eager to avoid the standings grind is because it's awful. If players will hate doing it, don't force it upon them, or you get unhappy players.

The LP-store permit thingies that highsec starbases need for fuel are absolutely fine, though. Keep them as a way to ensure highsec starbases are more expensive to operate than lowsec.

I think it a greater problem than that. If starbases are to be a conflict driver, it's neccessary that it's not best to simply pull them down, remake corp and slap them back up again during a war's 24-hour wait. I feel there's a point where no matter the sale price of the product, the ongoing cost and risk of assets might simply make the starbase non-viable.

This is tied to my belief that NPC lines shouldn't be drastically limited, mind. If NPC lines were too few, the starbase'd probably be the only option for many. But I've posted my thoughts on that already vOv

e: quotes

You're comparing rent payments, which are a transfer of existing isk from one party to another, with isk faucets, which are fresh isk being injected into the game. That's like comparing volts to bananas.

then why are some ready to pay rent for that space?

is it basically the case that sov-0 is only profitable if you're botting?

Otherwise this seems to be a bit of a paradox?