HS has frigates, should null sec not be allowed those either? I mean it is supposed to be “the exact opposite” I mean while we are at it, sub-caps are allowed in HS but caps aren’t. so should we make null-sec capital ships only?
we should also remove moon-mining from HS, since thats a null mechanic. actually we should remove citadels entirely, I mean null doesn’t have stations, and lots of stuff you can do with citadels can ONLY be done in null. so why should HS have them too?
This, as only one where I have re-iterated the answer to the question you keep asking.
I dunno whats your problem, especially when you accused me of being befuddled by nicotine, yet you seem to be incapable of reading/retaining/comprehending what has already been said in direct response to you.
I even made two vids to explain it, and still you ask the same question, over and over.
Are you a Whitehound alt?
The why is explicitly explained in the post directly above yours, and you seem as incapable of reading/comprehending it as Whithound has been for the last 50posts of mine and every readers waste of time.
Nothing you’ve said so far explains what the actual problem is. You perceive something as a problem, but you’ve said it yourself much further up, that it’s all subjective. Is it?
I think that’s rather easy to explain. There are notions of not only risk/reward, but also convenience/reward, difficulty/reward, etc.
It makes good sense to have high potential reward related to high risk. It makes good sense to have low potential reward related to low risk. Well, the same things are true with things like difficulty, convenience, etc. If you are in the most lucrative area of space, with the biggest rewards, you shouldn’t have all the quality of life features like free intel (local chat) that highsec enjoys. Local chat is also a higher security feature, so of course null shouldn’t have it.
Naturally, you can argue these things. You can even ask “why shouldn’t nullsec have CONCORD?” So at the end of the day it’s a matter of philosophy. You either have the philosophies of high-risk/high-reward, low-risk/low-reward, high-difficulty/high-reward, low-difficulty/low-reward, low-convenience/high-reward, high-convenience/low-reward, or you don’t.
At the end of the day, Eve needs to decide what kind of philosophy it has. We are arguing for the philosophies just stipulated above. You can argue that nullsec should have CONCORD if you want, and the chips can fall where they may.
You don’t seem to understand how this currently works.
Null-sec offers higher rewards obviously. This is meant to attract players naturally. Now the risk isn’t coming from the mechanic. The risk is coming from the players, from their greed and their mistrust to one another. Those who overcome and succeed these problems are rewarded by the more resourceful space.
That’s how it’s been for over 15 years. To change local or not to pay insurances isn’t going to make much of a difference. It only makes the losses more hurtful and the fights harder, but the outcome is still the same. And so there is no actual need for it.
Yes citadels and moon mining should be low and nullsec to allow the type of force needed to destroy well defended citadels.Since caps can’t enter highsec citadel there are too safe
It’s a PvP MMO, not a PvE MMO. The players matter more than the environment. This should have become obvious to you from day one when you’ve noticed how you warp through a planet or how space physics don’t really mimic real space or how come you can hear explosions in space.
Your idea of making null-sec harder has no foundation other than coming from your imagination.
You need to read where I explained this fully… over and over and over again. This is why I think you people are all trolls, and Salvos and I should just stop.
It has been explained a thousand times that we understand that risk comes from players, are fine with that, and don’t care about that for the purposes of this post. It has been explained a thousand times that we are focused here on CCP-owned risk/reward, irrespective of the player. So yes, local chat (free intel) reduces risk. We think null sec should do without such risk-reducing, and convenience features.