Which is does not. So it’s all right.
It conflicts with the risk vs. reward balance that is supposed to exist. You can not maintain that balance, a core element of EVE’s design principles, while simultaneously having easy farming ISK with zero risk. It doesn’t matter how many people are “comfortable” with farming menial tasks for tons of ISK, that can not be permitted to exist.
No. The whole “sandbox” thing is based loosely on a child’s sandbox. You make castles, or dig it in, or play with digger-toys in it or anything…
A sandbox game, such as this, is a sandbox in that it is essentially a free play-style that isn’t governed or driven by a structured set of tasks to complete or any kind of pre-set route of progression. Such as a story/plot-led specific route that you follow from beginning to the end. Because it has no end. Because it is a sandbox.
Whether or not you are ‘comfortable’ with any or all aspects or areas of said game does not define it as a sandbox. That defines how you feel about that particular aspect of it.
No it does not.
You have better reward in NS than in HS. Better relic/data sites, better anoms, better mission rewards, officers, ded10, better moons, etc. The reward in NS (and in LS too) is just plainly better.
If that was the case, CCP would not have added the project discovery.
Clearly, THAT is not an issue.
and that’s not what I wrote.
In a sand box, YOU chose where you want to install, if you can. If you can’t be comfortable in the game, you leave the game. So someone who is playing is someone who found a place he is comfortable in.
Yes. It is. That is exactly the point. Bc more risk so more reward.
1 Like
Better, but not better enough. It made sense when wars were more common, suicide ganking was easier, etc. But now highsec is too easy and mindless, and it’s turning into an obnoxious sense of entitlement. Just look at the farmers whining about how unfair it is that they can’t PLEX their account with a couple hours of farming because ECs got nerfed. Either highsec needs income nerfs to bring the rewards in line with CCP’s new vision of how risk levels should be, or the PvP nerfs need to be reversed so that meaningful risk still exists.
If that was the case, CCP would not have added the project discovery.
Clearly, THAT is not an issue.
If you don’t understand how Project Discovery is separate from the rest of EVE and why it is that way then I don’t know what to say, you’re too clueless for there to be any point.
But it is. I think maybe you have many problems and are letting them get to you. I think you are not actually reading things and are just saying words while you suffer the effects of a far-too-high blood pressure. Possibly the result of a fever or the sudden withdrawal of an addictive drug.
I think you should leave this place and get some help. Not saying that to make it worse, I’m saying it as I do honestly believe you are in a very bad place right now and you need real help.
Still better.
Therefore, your point was invalid.
HS does not break the rule of “more risk implies more rewards”.
literally not.
Oh look, now you’re back to trying to win the internet debate e-sport instead of having a constructive discussion. Nice job pulling one sentence fragment out and ignoring the rest of the context and explanation, but I guess that’s all you need to do to declare yourself the winner.
The fact that nullsec is better at all does not in any way negate the point. If it was 0.000001% better it would still be better, but would you honestly say that risk vs. reward balance is still maintained?
No, I just won. There was no trying.
Your point was invalid, period. The point you made, stating that HS broke the rule of “more risk implies more reward”, was invalid.
Now all you do is crying.
Yep, like I said. Declare yourself the winner, ignore the explanation because you don’t care about the conversation once you’ve found a way to “win”.
you did declare me the winner.
The result is : you were wrong when claiming there was an issue with HS.
Would you please just go play in traffic already and stop trying to derail another thread into masturbating over how much you “win”?
I claimed that, and it was correct. The fact that nullsec income is greater by any non-zero amount does not mean that risk vs. reward balance is maintained. And you ignored this fact in favor of quoting another sentence fragment and declaring yourself the winner.
fixed.
Which is not the claim you made.
Notice how the troll ignores the actual argument I made in favor of a smug declaration of victory and a FTFY edit.
you sure like to cry a lot.
You were wrong, I explained why. Now you keep crying.
Stop lying and posting straw man arguments. I objected to risk vs. reward balance, nowhere did I claim that there was literally zero difference in income between highsec and nullsec.
Just for the sake of clarity, here is my original post:
It’s right there in plain English, the issue is risk vs. reward balance. Anderson’s straw man argument is nowhere to be found.
such as ?