These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

What would happen if CCP finally nerfed hisec?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1101 - 2014-01-21 22:25:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
baltec1 wrote:
TharOkha wrote:
baltec1 wrote:



At the same time that these nerfs happened high sec income was buffed with the addition of incursions for one and SOE ships (plus more high sec level 4 SOE agents) with the other.


Incursions are not hisec exclusive
SOE missions are not hisec exclusive. (in fact nullsec SOE pays 50% more LPs)


Incursions are not run anywhere in null because they attract gangs like moths to a flame.

Nobody outside of the CFC can run SOE missions and even the CFC must deal with roaming gangs and neuts in local, it works out to be better income just doing it in high sec. The few systems are too easily camped to effectively run missions.

If these are the source complaints then I'd argue the goal of any highsec nerf is flawed. If avenues of making isk only result in no one doing them due to increased risks then increasing null population by nerfing highsec should have a similar effect with a similar end result.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1102 - 2014-01-21 22:30:02 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
If these are the source complaints than I'd argue the goal of any highsec nerf is flawed. If avenues of making isk only result in no one doing them due to increased risks then increasing null population by nerfing highsec should have a similar effect with a similar end result.


We ask for a nerf because our equivalent of level 4 missions, anoms, have been nerfed to the point where it is not worth running them. CCP have stated that they cannot buff them so there is only one option open to us. With this latest nerf to anom income all we are going to see is even more people going to high sec to make more isk for near no risk.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#1103 - 2014-01-21 22:39:30 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
If these are the source complaints than I'd argue the goal of any highsec nerf is flawed. If avenues of making isk only result in no one doing them due to increased risks then increasing null population by nerfing highsec should have a similar effect with a similar end result.


We ask for a nerf because our equivalent of level 4 missions, anoms, have been nerfed to the point where it is not worth running them. CCP have stated that they cannot buff them so there is only one option open to us. With this latest nerf to anom income all we are going to see is even more people going to high sec to make more isk for near no risk.



Aren't you just asking to nerf your own income?

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1104 - 2014-01-21 22:42:33 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:

Aren't you just asking to nerf your own income?


In short, yes.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#1105 - 2014-01-21 22:44:05 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:

Aren't you just asking to nerf your own income?


In short, yes.



Well then just give your extra income to a nice charity.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1106 - 2014-01-21 22:45:11 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:


Well then just give your extra income to a nice charity.


That wont get null players back into null to make their isk.
Doc Severide
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1107 - 2014-01-21 22:47:54 UTC
Diamond Zerg wrote:
Hold on a minute guys, I'm getting a lot of replies about how the hisec PvE population will quit.

To me, this doesn't make much sense.

Not much sense to who? It' makes perfect sense. I for one would quit immediately AND Biomass and destroy everything. There would be no coming back...
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#1108 - 2014-01-21 22:50:32 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:


Well then just give your extra income to a nice charity.


That wont get null players back into null to make their isk.


Neither does nerfing income in High Sec.

Nerf High Sec all you want.

We don't have AFK Cloakers.
We don't have to check local and DScan every 15 secs.
We don't have to dock every time a neutral comes into system.

But you already know that - you live in High Sec.

Honestly man, it really would make more sense to lobby to buff those anoms again rather than nerf high sec. I mean i get it, you have to do all that **** I listed above, you should get more. But how much more would make it worth your time and risk to go back and stay back?

150m/hr like Missions?
200m/hr like Incursions?

You'd still have to deal with the asshats so it really can never be enough can it?

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1109 - 2014-01-21 22:51:52 UTC
Doc Severide wrote:
Diamond Zerg wrote:
Hold on a minute guys, I'm getting a lot of replies about how the hisec PvE population will quit.

To me, this doesn't make much sense.

Not much sense to who? It' makes perfect sense. I for one would quit immediately AND Biomass and destroy everything. There would be no coming back...


People said the same thing when they nerfed incursions. High sec will not quit.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1110 - 2014-01-21 22:53:40 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
If these are the source complaints than I'd argue the goal of any highsec nerf is flawed. If avenues of making isk only result in no one doing them due to increased risks then increasing null population by nerfing highsec should have a similar effect with a similar end result.


We ask for a nerf because our equivalent of level 4 missions, anoms, have been nerfed to the point where it is not worth running them. CCP have stated that they cannot buff them so there is only one option open to us. With this latest nerf to anom income all we are going to see is even more people going to high sec to make more isk for near no risk.

Even aside from this nerf, the behavior of the players hasn't and the concentration of activity hasn't been in favor of null for a long time. Not prior to the truesec anom nerfs, not prior to incursions, and likely not prior to a number of income changes before that. The premise of an income differential that doesn't totally break one or more areas of space leading to your intent of keeping people in null to make isk is just something I don't see working.

And regarding the refusal to buff, that's probably a much easier issue to trace the source of. As with a number of other things those who have found a way to take the mechanic for all it's worth, and a more pure isk injection mechanic than the highsec counterparts at that, have cause CCP to start capping reward potentials to the detriment of others who aren't reaching those peaks.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1111 - 2014-01-21 22:55:03 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:


Well then just give your extra income to a nice charity.


That wont get null players back into null to make their isk.


Neither does nerfing income in High Sec.

Nerf High Sec all you want.

We don't have AFK Cloakers.
We don't have to check local and DScan every 15 secs.
We don't have to dock every time a neutral comes into system.

But you already know that - you live in High Sec.

Honestly man, it really would make more sense to lobby to buff those anoms again rather than nerf high sec. I mean i get it, you have to do all that **** I listed above, you should get more. But how much more would make it worth your time and risk to go back and stay back?

150m/hr like Missions?
200m/hr like Incursions?

You'd still have to deal with the asshats so it really can never be enough can it?


It was enough before the forsaken nerf. Simple fact is that CCP do not want to turn the taps back on in terms of isk. If high sec had seen the exact same nerfs mirrored that null has seen we wouldn't be in this trouble.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1112 - 2014-01-21 22:57:54 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Even aside from this nerf, the behavior of the players hasn't and the concentration of activity hasn't been in favor of null for a long time. Not prior to the truesec anom nerfs, not prior to incursions, and likely not prior to a number of income changes before that. The premise of an income differential that doesn't totally break one or more areas of space leading to your intent of keeping people in null to make isk is just something I don't see working.

And regarding the refusal to buff, that's probably a much easier issue to trace the source of. As with a number of other things those who have found a way to take the mechanic for all it's worth, and a more pure isk injection mechanic than the highsec counterparts at that, have cause CCP to start capping reward potentials to the detriment of others who aren't reaching those peaks.


Stopping mission blitzing would go a long way to bringing back balance without touching the "casuals".
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#1113 - 2014-01-21 22:58:39 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Neither does nerfing income in High Sec.

Nerf High Sec all you want.

We don't have AFK Cloakers.
We don't have to check local and DScan every 15 secs.
We don't have to dock every time a neutral comes into system.

But you already know that - you live in High Sec.

Honestly man, it really would make more sense to lobby to buff those anoms again rather than nerf high sec. I mean i get it, you have to do all that **** I listed above, you should get more. But how much more would make it worth your time and risk to go back and stay back?

150m/hr like Missions?
200m/hr like Incursions?

You'd still have to deal with the asshats so it really can never be enough can it?


It was enough before the forsaken nerf. Simple fact is that CCP do not want to turn the taps back on in terms of isk. If high sec had seen the exact same nerfs mirrored that null has seen we wouldn't be in this trouble.


Do you suppose there was a possible reason why they nerf ONLY null at that time and left high sec and lo sec alone? Surely they didn't do it just to be spiteful. Surely they didn't have a high level executive meeting where the tone was a simple, **** Null Sec!" I really have to wonder why they would have taken such an action.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1114 - 2014-01-21 22:59:36 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Doc Severide wrote:
Diamond Zerg wrote:
Hold on a minute guys, I'm getting a lot of replies about how the hisec PvE population will quit.

To me, this doesn't make much sense.

Not much sense to who? It' makes perfect sense. I for one would quit immediately AND Biomass and destroy everything. There would be no coming back...


People said the same thing when they nerfed incursions. High sec will not quit.

Highsec had alternatives when it came to PvE income in that situation. In a case of a blanket nerf to all income streams that wouldn't be the case. How that would end up we can only speculate since it has never happened. Also if the suspicions are true that highsec is really not a place where people live but rather a biproduct of alts and easy isk then we'd likely see some of those accounts reduced for lack of use IF the nerf worked as intended.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1115 - 2014-01-21 23:01:52 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:


Do you suppose there was a possible reason why they nerf ONLY null at that time and left high sec and lo sec alone? Surely they didn't do it just to be spiteful. Surely they didn't have a high level executive meeting where the tone was a simple, **** Null Sec!" I really have to wonder why they would have taken such an action.


They did it without considering the bigger picture. Just look at this latest plan.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1116 - 2014-01-21 23:03:13 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Even aside from this nerf, the behavior of the players hasn't and the concentration of activity hasn't been in favor of null for a long time. Not prior to the truesec anom nerfs, not prior to incursions, and likely not prior to a number of income changes before that. The premise of an income differential that doesn't totally break one or more areas of space leading to your intent of keeping people in null to make isk is just something I don't see working.

And regarding the refusal to buff, that's probably a much easier issue to trace the source of. As with a number of other things those who have found a way to take the mechanic for all it's worth, and a more pure isk injection mechanic than the highsec counterparts at that, have cause CCP to start capping reward potentials to the detriment of others who aren't reaching those peaks.


Stopping mission blitzing would go a long way to bringing back balance without touching the "casuals".

I agree, but fat chance on it happening. Same reason anoms probably won't be revamped from being what IMHO is the worst PvE in the game: no one wants CCP to devote time to fixing what ails it.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1117 - 2014-01-21 23:04:12 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Highsec had alternatives when it came to PvE income in that situation. In a case of a blanket nerf to all income streams that wouldn't be the case. How that would end up we can only speculate since it has never happened. Also if the suspicions are true that highsec is really not a place where people live but rather a biproduct of alts and easy isk then we'd likely see some of those accounts reduced for lack of use IF the nerf worked as intended.


High sec had nothing to match pre nerf incursions. The same people said they were going to quit over the ice changes and the POCO changes. Its nothing but empty threats that have been screamed every time someones unbalanced golden goose has been nerfed.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#1118 - 2014-01-21 23:06:25 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:


Do you suppose there was a possible reason why they nerf ONLY null at that time and left high sec and lo sec alone? Surely they didn't do it just to be spiteful. Surely they didn't have a high level executive meeting where the tone was a simple, **** Null Sec!" I really have to wonder why they would have taken such an action.


They did it without considering the bigger picture. Just look at this latest plan.


And by latest plan I assume you are referring to the ESS.

I think you and I can both agree that the ESS is stupid and if it's going to be deployable anywhere it should be deployable everywhere. But we'll leave that discussion on the thread regarding that abomination.

So in the time since the Forsaken Nerf they've had time to evaluate the results of their intervention, the nerf, and have come to the conclusion that you guys still suck and aren't deserving of pre-nerf bounties? I mean they've had time to see the big picture and to perhaps, in hindsight, re-evaluate that nerf and have done what to remedy the "trouble" that null sec is in?

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1119 - 2014-01-21 23:11:32 UTC  |  Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2
baltec1 wrote:
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Null has seen nerf after nerf to its income that have only impacted null.

Can you list what these "nerfs after nerfs" have been that are exclusive to null alone?

Remember: I'm using your own standard here. If a nerf is not exclusive to null then it should not be categorized as a nerf to null.


*Forsaken nerf, ended farming via blaster ships.
*Anom nerf, CCP wanted us to fight over the "handful of good anom systems" and so, nerfed the vast bulk of systems to work off truesec.


At the same time that these nerfs happened high sec income was buffed with the addition of incursions for one and SOE ships (plus more high sec level 4 SOE agents) with the other.

Again, using your own standard here:

Forsaken sites are NOT null-sec only sites. This is NOT a null sec nerf.
Anom nerfs were not exlusive to null. Therefore, by your own standard, this is NOT a null sec nerf.

In reference to the hi sec "buffs":

The addition of incursions sites are not hi sec only, therefore, by your own standard, this is NOT a hi sec buff. Or did you mean that incursions were added only to hi? I'm not aware of this, if this is what you're implying.

Same with SOE ships. These ships are allowed in lo and null, so how would this be a hi sec buff?

So bottom line is, just as you claim hi sec has not been nerfed, neither has null.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#1120 - 2014-01-21 23:11:41 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Even aside from this nerf, the behavior of the players hasn't and the concentration of activity hasn't been in favor of null for a long time. Not prior to the truesec anom nerfs, not prior to incursions, and likely not prior to a number of income changes before that. The premise of an income differential that doesn't totally break one or more areas of space leading to your intent of keeping people in null to make isk is just something I don't see working.

And regarding the refusal to buff, that's probably a much easier issue to trace the source of. As with a number of other things those who have found a way to take the mechanic for all it's worth, and a more pure isk injection mechanic than the highsec counterparts at that, have cause CCP to start capping reward potentials to the detriment of others who aren't reaching those peaks.


Stopping mission blitzing would go a long way to bringing back balance without touching the "casuals".

I agree, but fat chance on it happening. Same reason anoms probably won't be revamped from being what IMHO is the worst PvE in the game: no one wants CCP to devote time to fixing what ails it.


I also agree with the bolded Baltec quote.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!