EVE General Discussion

There goes that tendency to oversimplify I mentioned. Lots of high sec posters seem to have that tendency because they jump to the conclusion that any balance discussion is some kind of conspiracy to force them out of high sec.

I have forever said I'm against anyone being forced to do anything in a video game. But high sec pve being too good as it is blunts some of the natural forces that would entice the people already so inclined to risk things outside of high sec (not just to null sec either).

It (high sec being too lucrative to anyone with a spaceship and guns) is not the only factor that keeps high sec stuffed with characters and the other 3 security bands (low, null, WHs) so low population wise, but it is a factor.

---

And the issue of relative rewards is another issue all together. The reason why buffing null (even with LP as Kimmi Chan suggests) doesn't work is because above a certain point, it' doesn't matter,

As i said, I replied to Infinity Ziona once that you could make more than enough in high sec to plex 10 accounts and have isk left over. Since you can do that, it wouldn't matter if you could make 200 mil an hour in null anoms or 600 mil an hour in fw lvl 4s (which you can under the right circumstances). While the more adventurous and easily bored of us will go where the 'best' isk is, most people go where "enough" isk is.

(Same as real life, lots of people will tell you "i'd rather be comfortable than rich")

It's here that the pve imbalance matches the industry imbalance. Sure, we could spend trillions of isk on null sec infrastructure that will just get taken away so we could build in null sec. Or we could just buy it in jita and ship it down or build it yourself in FREE high sec slots that can never be taken away as long and the server is up.

Sure we could make 20 bil a month ninja'ing Goon plexes while goons are gone, or we can make 10 bil a month (more than we need) doing Sister's of EVE missions in the safety of high sec in a tech2 fit marauder no one wants to gank.

As long as things are so easy and relatively safe in high sec while at the same time being "just profitable enough" the imbalances that contribute to the current state of null (and low) will persist.

Actually that's a horrible idea. Marlona is just mad that they lost the war.

Stopped reading here.

It seems that anybody who disagrees with you automagically lives in high sec. Well, I live in nullsec, so there goes that.

Goons would be forced to actually strategically position and defend borders, so it's a bad idea.

It would give new alliances a fighting chance.

It would be AWFUL for goons - they will never support it.

The current status quo of defending and attacking anything from anywhere benefits them far too much for them to ever want that changed.

Vast swathes have fallen to the mighty Brothers of Tangra. What menace will this space empire pose to the galaxy, what content will come from this behemoth, what stories will the BBC report in the future.

I inquired of their leader, but all he had to say was 01110010001111010100100111011001001000100....

You mean like Goons were so opposed to tech being fixed? Oh, wait, they were the loudest proponents of fixing it.

That proves my point. I live in nullsec - but because I disagree with you, I am a "highsec poster."

A change like this would make the tech nerf look like childs play.

Also, the tech nerf didn't threaten their entire infrastructure. It only threatened some income.

If it wasn't so quick and easy to travel across 6 or more regions to blob the only non-blues left in nullsec, then maybe, just maybe you might not end up setting everyone within 40-50 jumps blue.

I'd hardly describe pre-fixed tech income as "some", I'd lean toward "huge" or "massive". Regardless of the size of the change, nullsec groups are frequently seen lobbying CCP to fix things that are bad for the game, even though the changes often hurt those same groups.