EVE General Discussion

No. That's just where the goal post has now been moved. The OP really had no substance other than a proposal to blanket-nerf hi sec to "make Eve a better game in general."

At some point you yourself claimed it isn't about profit. And now, it is. This is how these nerf-hi-sec threads usually play out. They go round and round in circles with goal posts being picked up and moved. **** is thrown to the wall in the hopes that something, anything will stick.

Just as an example, Baltec1 asserts that hi sec has never been nerfed because he doesn't count nerfs that affect other areas of space. At the same time he claims null has been continuously nerfed. But his data, all of his data, makes reference to nerfs that have affected other areas of space. When this is pointed out, the goal post is simply picked up and moved elsewhere.

Kimmi said it best. Until you don't define what problem it is you are trying to solve and what viable solution is there, other than "null sec sux, nerf hi sec!" without providing any substance to back up these assertions, there really is nothing to be said, other than inconsistencies and biased vitriol.

Seems fairly clear what the issue is. Nullbears claim that they prefer the safety of hisec for individual money making. They claim the risk is too high in null for the available reward. Keep in mind, they will only refer to the risk/reward math involving various forms of ratting; they don't want to talk about moon goo and PI because it doesn't fit their complaints.

Why is the risk so high? Because large sov holding alliances have decided to shoot everything, including using their own alt accounts to kill the miners and ratters in their own alliances.

So, in their infinite wisdom the complainers think that the best solution is to ruin other people's gameplay (nerf hisec) by either reducing the rewards, or by increasing risk. In other words, nullbear complainers want to ruin hisec, using exactly the same methods they used to ruin sov space.

Now, in all fairness there are plenty of folks who live or have lived in null and find the risk/reward there perfectly acceptable. What we see here on the forums are a handful of nullbear whiners.

Instead of ruining other areas of the sandbox, I would prefer we make sov holders actually defend their space.

1: Reduce power projection to make sov holders defend their space or lose it
2: Flip the trickle down economics failure on its head and make it bottom up (moongoo, etc)
3: Ensure the *individual* income in null is better than in hisec *and* worth the risk for most players, ignoring the vocal minority
4: Fix multiple missions so they cannot be blitzed. It is ok to have a couple, but too many make for easy ISK.

Here we all go again, talking around in circles, bouncing between industry and missions. If there were a problem, CCP would resolve it yes? And since they don't seem to be pushing initiatives in high sec and instead they are pushing a dumbass deployable in Null Sec, what message are you hearing from that Baltec?

The message is this - There is too much money in Nullsec. If the end result of any data, graphs, charts, opinions, conjecture, or magically derived functions of the most bizarre mathematics showed anything else - CCP would make a change... Since they are not, it seems clear to me that they know something you don't.

If however, you believe you know something that CCP does not then write it up and submit it on F&I, blog about it on themittani.com. We would all love to hear what it is that you have knowledge of that is escaping CCP and their esteemed staff.

Until then, this discussion and the constant circular and tangent arguments is literally pointless.

Even for you, this is derping pretty hard.

The desire to see industry be viable in nullsec isn't about profit.

The desire to have viable personal income is about income.



Which is true.

Because nerfs that effect other areas of space are not nerfs to highsec, they are nerfs to everything.

High end anom nerfs on the other hand, are nerfs to just nullsec.

I really don't see why this is so difficult for you.



While I am aware that you would like to label it as such to remove the legitimacy of the complaint, you cannot do so.

I'll summarize it for you.

Industry in any area but highsec is entirely unviable, and is only done to manufacture things that cannot be made in highsec, capitals. The only things manufactured outside of highsec is what people are forced to do.

Secondly, personal income is far more viable in highsec than anywhere else. While the individual upper bounds of nullsec may be higher, they are subtractive, and thus not sustainable for any significant population size. As opposed to L4s, which can be done by hundreds of people without end, ever, in near total safety.

One of the proposed fix actions would be to de-incentivize NPC controlled manufacturing and refining facilities in favor of player controlled ones.

Another is to make highsec less safe by some means, so that more loss can be generated. Yet another is to lower payouts for L4s. My personal favorite is something I saw a while back suggesting that L4 mission NPCs can't be run more than 5 times per day, thereby forcing people to move around instead of camping a 3-4 system area with the same NPC day in, day out. This would be ideal as it would generate some dynamic behavior into something stale and static. Shake things up, as it were.

Ever tried to run them?

Ever seen any in sov nul?

There are no mission agents in sov null sec.

Yup I believe I said that

So that means no LP.

The issue is with anoms in sov space, not the handful of NPC null missions.

I wasnt aware that "gimp" was slang for someone who cant do something.

I have been unable to do so due to losses, so kudos to you for being the better pilot, but there's no need to be a jerk about it.

Ok cool, I now understand.

Thanks