EVE General Discussion

Well, if you look at it this way....

Don't you think that balance risk (totally player controlled) and rewards (totally NPC controlled) is somehow complicated?
For example give your value of change to high-sec rewards and tell why it should not be twice less or twice higher?

1) Good. We agree. Lack of cynos in LS will not impair LS logistics. You dont need JFs to supply LS.
It will increase population and PvP in LS.

2) I suggested a similar HS Ice belt nerf. But I argued for longer respawn timer, and/or less total yield. Your wider field and small ice rocks could also work, but I prefer my suggestion. Id also add more Ice fields to LS.

3) HS Incursions are ridiculous. Everyone knows this. Its high time this was finally addressed.

4) If HS Incursions and Ice fields are nerfed, (both of which SHOULD be anyways) this makes LS more attractive.
Its not an "HS nerf", its balancing activities that are too lucrative and safe in the first place.
HS Incursions and Ice mining are waaay to easy and lucrative.

Players are afraid of cyno drops in LS. And as Ive explained elsewhere, cynos dont belong in LS anyways.

5) In theory I agree with your HS relax, NS sov combat, and LS small gang ideal.
But in order for that to happen, change must happen.
HS is too relaxed.
NS doesnt PvP much.
LS cant small gang cos cynos.

Three letters.
Lol.

Do you really think us so naive that we dont see your obvious underlying selfish motive?

Cynos dont belong in LS.
They belong in NS.

Furthermore JFs dont belong in LS either, let alone in HS.

Fly your cargo through by other means.
You dont need cynos or JF to do that through LS.

It should not become "safer", it should become "more lucrative and/or interesting". FW missions are good example, how you can PvE in PvP ship. And IMHO low sec is place for PvP, primary. If you make something safer it reduces PvP fun. Cause kill defenseless PvE ship is not a fun - its a primitive form of PvP, abused by players with hurt selfesteem.

I think there is a very basic contradiction between understanding of low sec role in the game. Some players still think it is place to live in, other think it is place to have PvP fun. It is not necessary the same. Make money elsewhere, spend them in low sec. ;) Problem solved.

Probably. I'll most likely be skewered for suggesting this, but high-sec income needs a nerf. Yes, I'm talking about you Burners and Incursions.

Burners should be moved exclusively to low-sec because there is no point in running them outside of high-sec for the entailed risk. The only problem I see is that a lot of the fits need to be very specialized for different Burners which does not lend itself well to potential PvP engagements. The Guristas Base Anomic is just poorly-designed and needs a revamp. L4 agents should remain in high-sec without any changes.

High-sec Incursions have always bothered me. Aside from the fact it seems odd that the Sansha are regularly able to stage mass invasions into high-sec, they also seem very elitist. These should be removed from high-sec altogether.

There is also the very real problem of null-sec alts padding their income by abusing both of these mechanisms in high-sec, and for that reason alone they both need to go. This will take high-sec income down from well over 200m ISK/hour to 50-60m ISK/hour. Those willing to entail more risk for greater rewards will venture into low-sec. Those who won't will take the hit and stay in high-sec. All the null alts will return to null-sec where they belong.

Low-sec also needs some changes, such as eliminating cynos and banning gate travel to super capitals (no more FAX, super carriers or titans).

Citadels also need a re-work as quickly as possibly by increasing the vulnerability window and requiring a base fuel operating cost. No fuel - no vulnerability window and no asset safety (meaning anyone can dock and loot the sucker or destroy it without a wardec).

If you kept high-sec Incursions you'd have to limit the frequency (making them rarer) and probably cut the income by at least half.

With respect to Citdaels, what I meant was require a fuel cost to online them as well as a base operating cost (some of the services would then have their fuel costs reduced). This provides you with an expanded vulnerability window and asset safety. Let your Citadel run out of fuel and you lose the vulnerability window, asset safety as well as any docking rights (ownership reverts to public, so the first players to dock can assume control by refueling, loot, dismantle or destroy without a wardec). Establishing a blockade thus becomes a vital tactic to isolate Citadels.

so you want to force people to go to highsec to do pve when they dont want to?

lvl 5's are in lowsec not null

edit: yes you did say that because i quoted what you said and it said that

This is an impossible demand.

Its not CCP forcing you to PvP, its other players.
This cannot ever change in EVE.

Think of it as predators and prey, if that helps.
You both live in the same ecosystem, and are both interdependent.

this is about improving lowsec not gutting lowsec and null so you can put it in highsec, you can run lvl 5's in a rattlesnake, you dont need capitals.

that being said everyone would just go to highsec and thats not good for anything