EVE General Discussion

A tellingly defensive answer, baselessly implying that I have no interest in the facts. I just presented the facts. The facts are that yes, CCP probably should fix risk/reward, but doing it by nerfing hi-sec in any way has one and exactly one outcome: disaster.

Short answer

No

Long answer

Noooo...

Should high sec go away then any security rating should disappear including player's. Also skills. You start the game in a rookie ship in a random system and it's up entirely up to you. That's a real sand box and leaves no room for any exploit mechanics.

However, you'd need an npc controlled market system spread through out the universe to avoid known trading hub docking massacres. You wont be able to have a player driven economy without high sec space because it is the only thing that allows the market to function somehow free (or at least under the illusion of freedom) from politics.

p.s. btw remember that without Concord local also does not exist.

The difference is that buffing everything else will have some pretty significant adverse effects on the economy of… well, everything.

There's a reason why nerfs are pretty much universally better than buffs.

Yes.

No.

I don't know.

Ask me later.

That, and because personal income and by extension purchasing power are relative.

That means that nerfing the largest offenders against risk/reward, you achieve balance for the rest at the same time.

If you had've said this about twelve months ago, I'd have agreed with you completely. Now, I'm not so sure.

If I could go back in time, after buying really cheap gold and investments, I would try to convince CCP that instead of completely different constellations with security status, it would be best to put all three types in each and every solar system.

Thus it could be assumed that the livable planets in the interior of the solar system is highsec because that's what matters to any controlling empire faction (markets, stations, etc.). Beyond that, into the less habitable planets' orbits, lowsec. Close enough to be seen doing naughty things, but too far for the space police to do anything.

Beyond the last orbit, interstellar perhaps, it's a free for all zone and nobody can hear you scream (nor care for that matter so no security loss for further naughty activity).

Gates, moons, bridges, sites - all across the spectrum of the three zones per system, and yes, even capitals could jump but only in outer space and the outer ring. Some systems have gates in the secure zone to other systems with gates in just about any zone, but other gates in the systems on lower security zones as well. (Would have been great for smuggling and moving restricted ships too).

That model alone would have prevented this entire "sec" conflict thing.

Chances are things were done the way they are done now for reasons I don't comprehend since I was not there when they came up with it. For example, highsec has a lot of processing overhead for activity because there are a lot of checks for security status, space police checking on activity, etc. Get in close to a freighter gank and note that there is usually a lag spike because the server is doing a lot of processing of standings loss, who is doing what to who, and all that other related functions, at the same time. If nullsec had the same mechanics, the big fleet battles would TiDi into negatives and the players involved would probably go back in time (or it would take a week to launch a missile).

Jeez, not this again...

I dunno, I kind of find these threads interesting, especially when you see the people who don't want highsec removed and they turn out to be the usual suspects - the same people whinebears except to be leading the charge for deleting it.