EVE General Discussion

Understood and granted that you want your HS activities to fund your LS pvp activity.

But is it rational or justification in and of itself?

You illustrate exactly the phenomenon Im talking about.

Does it make sense that your safe activity provides so much profit, that you can fund an unsafe activity?

Its +1-1.

Ultimately this results in there being no risk in your unsafe activities, because you can recoup that loss in safe activity, and then some.

Its like saying "I live in my gated safe environment earning profit in my day job with wife, dog and 1.5kids,, so I can, in my free time, head down to the ghetto and shoot people. My high and safe life funds my low life."

There is no risk, because everything you lose at risk in LS, you recoup without risk in HS+.

Meaning losing ships in LS pvp means nothing, has no risk, because you can just head back to safe HS and recoup it all +profit running safe L4 missions, as well as transitting modules to hubs with little risk, and earning in HS hubs with less risk.

This was a mistake of mine on an LS escalation. **** fit and I should have seen the danger when I already encountered an uncloaked scout at the threshold. Well done to them for catching me on it. I also failed to remember what my warp to keybind was... Content for them, learning for me.

Thanks to HS security and profits, I made up most of the difference in a few subsequent HS combat sigs.

"spamming the forums with nerf high sec threads?"
Not threads, just a few posts here in this thread arguing against my own advantage for a better overall game.

Im prepared to compromise, and see the necessity and function of that.

I would have made more isk, at less risk, had I stayed in HS safety and ignored the final stage escalation in favor of more HS combat sigs and/or HS anom expeditions, including risk, and including drop value.

Thats exactly my point.

It costs me more, and risks me more, to fly an escalation capable ship hull out of HS into LS to finish its last stage, for less reward, than it does me to just keep on farming HS.

The only reason I ever crossed the line, was out of curiosity.
I ****** up. Im ok with that. Np. HS sig farming, thanks to margins, will handle me just fine.

Im arguing AGAINST my own advantage.
Make my HS safe profits low enough to make me want to risk ship/module loss like this, for profit elsewhere.
And by all means, punish me for being stupid enough to do it against obcious danger and with a **** fit...

Risk has everything to do with PvP.

I couldnt disagree more with your angle.
Youve fundamentally misunderstood the first rule.
Risk in EVE is always player based. NPCs dont count.

That aside, to your next point:
Yes, other activities fund PvP.
Yes, there have to be other sources (also to fuel the EVE economy not only in terms of replacing ship destruction in terms of materials to build them, but also isk funds to buy those replacements).

But this is no argument for HS systemic high profits from HS L4missions, sigs/anom escalations and ultimately trading.
Safe farming in HS, with high profit, at low risk, in conjunction with the ease of transit of product to safe interconnected hubs, multiplied by HS hub trading alts, is out of whack. So much so that everyone is doing it, even NS entities who otherwise have their own space to do so in.

HS life is too profitable, not only for its exclusively HS occupants, but especially for players with multiple accounts who fund their activities elsewhere based on that, rather than dedicating to their other interests.

Lets take you as an example.
You run HS l4 missions with probably a multibillion ship, at almost no risk.
Then you jump clone or fund an alt to lose ships worth a fraction of your HS profits, and a fraction of your farming ships.
You arent risking anything. Your HS pursuits, safely, fund your risky LS pursuits +.

Its schitzophrenic and is core to EVE sector based profit problems.

TLDR:
HS exclusive proponents dont understand or appreciate that they are not the only ones exploiting HS security and profit.
Infact, Id argue they comprise a minority of that interest.
You need to understand that EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE in EVE, has HS interests, not just you. Youd be a damn fool not to.
Whether with alts operating there perpetually, or when **** gets bad at their primary homebase, or to capitalize on the plethora of competitive hubs.
For every HS exclusive player, there is a multitude of players with accounts operating throughout all sectors.
They affect the market a great deal.

HS living incurs little to no expense, at little to no risk.
The paradox here is, the more players can be incentivized to return to their local space, and activity/produce/trade there, the higher the commodities markets will rise in HS, in the favor of HS exclusive players, in their absence.
See what I mean?
HS profit problems are based on TOO MUCH POPULATION from secondary activity of too many players based in other sectors.
The more of that that can be incentivized to operate elsewhere, due to lower HS profits, so they do it locally elsewhere (which is intrinsivally in the interest of local markets and content providers in those areas), inversly the greater the demand on supply on HS is. The margin of difference in inundated HS markets is superficial and tiny. HS nerfs dont hurt HS much, compared to how much they hurt other operators from other space on alts. The market can sustain it, in their absence, due to less supply and commensurately more demand, especially o product already available (and the life blood) of HS producers.

HS nerfs dont hurt HS exclusive players. The enormous market can handle it, according to local HS supply/demand.
It just increases their own demand in HS commensurately, as players with access to less supply regions move out and instead provide them locally there, for a greater price, in regions of higher demand and less supply outside of HS.
They "hurt" pilots playing both fields, in HS and their primary non-HS locale. But again, as above, only if they do not focus efforts in inherently more profitable (but less safe) areas of operation, where demand is systemically greater.

TLDRX2:
HS profit nerfs dont significantly hurt HS players.
It hurts players playing both sides, from other sectors.
The loss in volume is counteracted by increase in demand.
Non-HS players instead move to fovus on their locale, and HS players are left free to moderate their own market based on their own HS product.
It all balances out, but also creates more incentive for non-HS producers to operate locally, for greater profit on site.

Did a guy hiding behind an npc corp just tell someone to post with their main? It feels like dividing by zero....

Everyone risks the same thing: One month of subscription money (or time grinding) per month.

Everyone should get the same reward: Having fun doing what they like to do in-game.

CODE is one of the best things to happen to HS.
Yes, it pissess off victims, but the principle of keeping HS at risk matters far and beyond that.

I find their anti-mining activities a bit petty, but nonetheless costs are small, and HS mining carries too many multiboxing so called mining "bot aspirants" that deserve destruction. They are trying to exploit the game, and CODE is a valid counter to that.

As to L4 missioning bling ships, Im not sure how committed CODE is to that, but its certainly an area of unmitigated HS risk that needs addressing. Flying an uber bling BS should NEVER be safe. If CODE can mitigate that, and remind them of that, thats great.

Incursion fleets, imo, are an element that needs more PvP moderation.
Its too systemic and safe, for too much inherent HS conveniance.

Im all for introducing PvP elements to the otherwise pre-existant systemwide modifiers for incursions.
It irks me that these guys in some of the most fantastically bling ships anywhere in EVE are covered by conventional security measures, whereas anyone else in the system is impaired, and in comparison to mechanics in other sectors.

As far as HS changes go, making incursion fleets vulnerable to PvP is my top concern.
Its just WRONG, in an EVE sense, for so many bling ships to come together in HS, with no PvP recourse, and farm with impunity one of its highest isk faucets.

Its game farming at is worst, with no PvP control, in safe space, in EVE.
NS/sov mechanics aside, this is by far the most serious HS infrigement that needs attention.

No.
This has to end.
Incursion fleets, in incursion systems, need a PvP element.
They've already fine tuned the PvE encounter, now introduce a PvP element for some real risk/isk.
How does it make sense for 10+ ships with ultra-bling fittings to farm a PvE encounter, with no PvP opportunity in safe sec, though incursions hamper everyone else?

Hell no.

No, it is very simple, if hi sec were removed, eve would... well... do what it has been doing for a long time now, but then for real... it would just simply wither and die.

I may have expressed myself a lil extreme, but the hi/lo/no sec is what made eve interesting from the start, and lets be honest, even hi sec is just that... high, not TOTALLY safe.

Like what exactly? I look through the rest of your post and see no reason other than, as far as I can tell, you just wanting more people there. Now I have to ask myself: Why does this guy want more people in null/low? Given the mechanics of null/low there is only one reason I can come up with. So help me out here and explain this plethora of reasons you think people should head out to null/low for.




They have the capital to waste frivolously in low/null. Furthermore, they want to engage other players. They have put in the time to gain the SP to properly fit their ships for PvP combat and to make good ISK. What is being suggested is people who want nothing to do with your preferred play style should be pushed into your turf to exist by your rules for your amusement. Myself and many others will not play a game to be a source of amusement for you and your fellow cronies. These people with high sec alts are the people already there. They do not constitute the overwhelming vast majority that do not bother with null/low at all. If null/low was so great they wouldn't be using alts. Clearly, high sec is preferred for NON-PVP activities. Hmmm, I wonder why?

My window into New Eden is quite large. Yours is quite small. Otherwise, this conversation would not be happening.

At this point I'm not sure if you're trolling, or just that your own reading comprehension is so bad that you think I'm arguing for highsec to be removed.

It's one of the worst things to happen to the forums, though.



The only thing that's wrong is that you think there's some sort of moral imperative in play here. This is why the issue can't get discussed intelligently; there are too many people that do not understand that their assumptions about what the game should be like are not automatically a given.