These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Why the hate for Hi-Sec players?

Author
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#101 - 2012-05-31 13:15:21 UTC
Pheusia wrote:
Goons pay 100M per 10 hulks ganked. 10 hulks contain about 2 billion ISK worth of Technetium, of which the CFC control something like 35 or 40% of the total supply.

Paying 100M in "marketing" spend for 800M in extra sales is on the high end but easily within "real world" parameters of business, especially for products with a very high gross margin.


What tha....I didn't even....

Training *Technitium reprocessing", gona dust off my hulk Lol

brb

TheBlueMonkey
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#102 - 2012-05-31 13:19:22 UTC
Hestia Mar wrote:
Velicitia wrote:
EFF ONEF1 wrote:
The whiners want to play the game their way with no interruption or outside factors unless they specifically go looking for it.

The people who "hate" them do not want them to play that way, they want them to play their way.

oversimplification



Not necessarily "our" way ... but just to realise that "yes, seriously, by clicking 'UNDOCK' you consented to PvP". Along with that, the acceptance that anyone can blap you anywhere at any time for any reason, and it's 100% "fair" within the confines of the game rules (sure, it stings ... and it has the potential to set you back days or weeks ... but someone can do the same thing to them [might even be YOU one day])



Although a carebear, I don't want to see any major changes to gameplay - the way it is, is the way it is.

However this notion about 'undocking means you consent to pvp' is just total bollocks...if , when undocking, a window opens and gives a warning, such as you get when jumping into lo-sec, that you may be attacked at any time, and you need to click 'ok' to undock, then yes I would accept that undock does mean consent. But that's not what happens!

Your analogy means that every time I leave my house, I'm consenting to being murdered on my way to work, and (let me check here...), er, no, I don't consent to that.

I say again, I don't want/expect any changes...I know I can be ganked at any time but I do not consent to it, I just accept it as part of the game.


except for the fact that every time you leave your house you are doing just that.
Accepting (not concenting to that but accepting it could happen) that by leaving the house someone could hit you with their car, mug you or any other thing that happens in the outside world.

Eve's the same. In real life people probably won't mug you if you live in a decent neighbourhood but in the same breath that's probably because they have money and are concerned with the police and the whole prison thing that goes with it.

Eve's the same again, maybe the consiquences should be a little harsher for the gankers but there are always ways round them because people aren't locked to 1 account per player.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#103 - 2012-05-31 13:19:44 UTC
Drei Ontalas wrote:
It would still be EVE. The greatness of the game is that it can accomodate a multiplicity of play styles.

In theory a hi-sec bubble of theme park could accommodate those most hated of players from WOW, SWTOR etc. This would bump up CCP's resources. It would also mean more players would be able to find their feet before joining the "real" EVE.
No it wouldn't, unless, in that same theory, those players were unable to interact with the market; were unable to engage in science and industry; were unable to mine, do exploration, and collect loot and salvage from missions.

Without those restrictions, the rest of EVE cannot accommodate the levels of protections inside that bubble and it would abused to no end.
Drei Ontalas
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#104 - 2012-05-31 13:30:31 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Drei Ontalas wrote:
It would still be EVE. The greatness of the game is that it can accomodate a multiplicity of play styles.

In theory a hi-sec bubble of theme park could accommodate those most hated of players from WOW, SWTOR etc. This would bump up CCP's resources. It would also mean more players would be able to find their feet before joining the "real" EVE.
No it wouldn't, unless, in that same theory, those players were unable to interact with the market; were unable to engage in science and industry; were unable to mine, do exploration, and collect loot and salvage from missions.

Without those restrictions, the rest of EVE cannot accommodate the levels of protections inside that bubble and it would abused to no end.


How would it be abused? I accept that some people would do their level best to abuse the system. They already do. But what would the nature of the abuse be?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#105 - 2012-05-31 13:33:26 UTC
Drei Ontalas wrote:
How would it be abused? I accept that some people would do their level best to abuse the system. They already do. But what would the nature of the abuse be?
Production of ISK, materials, and equipment without any possibility whatsoever to disrupt those activities. Competition on vastly unequal terms.
Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
True Reign
#106 - 2012-05-31 13:33:28 UTC
Eve does not need a bubble of safety. Eve needs an end to long term events targeted against a particular set of players. No other changes than that. Just stop Hulkageddon and stop this endless, nonsensical crap about miners on the forums. I mean James315 and his stupid manifestos, in particular.

Stop Hulkageddon - I mean stop the Infinite event. Periodic Hulkageddons are fine. But allowing player groups to hit on one subset of players who are doing a legal activity is just going to cause this ranting and bitterness to go on and on. The Goons are brilliant at getting attention for themselves and I'm sure they can find some other way to do it.
Virgil Travis
Non Constructive Self Management
#107 - 2012-05-31 13:35:38 UTC
Drei Ontalas wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Drei Ontalas wrote:
It would still be EVE. The greatness of the game is that it can accomodate a multiplicity of play styles.

In theory a hi-sec bubble of theme park could accommodate those most hated of players from WOW, SWTOR etc. This would bump up CCP's resources. It would also mean more players would be able to find their feet before joining the "real" EVE.
No it wouldn't, unless, in that same theory, those players were unable to interact with the market; were unable to engage in science and industry; were unable to mine, do exploration, and collect loot and salvage from missions.

Without those restrictions, the rest of EVE cannot accommodate the levels of protections inside that bubble and it would abused to no end.


How would it be abused? I accept that some people would do their level best to abuse the system. They already do. But what would the nature of the abuse be?


Does it really matter what the nature of the abuse would be? It just doesn't fit with the concept of EVE, plain and simple, it not's required to make EVE 'better' and those of us who actually signed up for the game as it's presented by CCP don't wish to see the sandbox ruined by those coming from other games and trying to turn it into the same rubbish that they played elsewhere.

Unified Church of the Unobligated - madness in the method Mamma didn't raise no victims.

c4 t
Cosmic Psychedelics
#108 - 2012-05-31 13:39:19 UTC  |  Edited by: c4 t
Tor Gungnir wrote:
"The whiny carebear that wants to destroy EVE" is the second biggest myth ever, right after Bigfoot. I've never seen one on these forums. What I do see, however, is a lot douchebaggy "PvPers" who wants to ruin EVE by idiotic ideas such as removal of local and High-sec areas.

The hate, in my eyes, is unwarranted and most often down right hypocritical.


****** detected!

edit: Looks like the word for people with sever developmental problems is censored.
Drei Ontalas
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#109 - 2012-05-31 13:45:55 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Drei Ontalas wrote:
How would it be abused? I accept that some people would do their level best to abuse the system. They already do. But what would the nature of the abuse be?
Production of ISK, materials, and equipment without any possibility whatsoever to disrupt those activities. Competition on vastly unequal terms.



1.Isn't most of the buying/selling/production already done in hi-sec anyway? And since you can't get all resources (or most?) from hi-sec their wouldn't be much of a change in the economy.

2.Competition between who?
Jenn aSide
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#110 - 2012-05-31 13:47:10 UTC
Drei Ontalas wrote:
1. In these forums there appears to be this notion that Hi-sec players should move (by force or encouragement) to lower-sec space. Why?


Because this game's economy runs on consumption, and that mainly happens AWAY from high sec where you have to jump through hoops to kill another players ship
[quot]
If a player is happy mining scordite in 1.0 space why is that a problem?[/quote] Not a problem as long as the player accepts that undocking was his consent to pvp.

Quote:
If a player like to sit in Jita making trades why is that a problem?
None as long as he doesn't undock.

Quote:
If a player prefers to do hi-sec missions what is the problem?
See all the above.

Quote:

2. I am genuinely interested in establishing where/how the hostility towards hi-sec comes from. From my admittedly limitedly experience it seems so come down to the EVE equivalent of "Mommy he won't play with me! Make him!"

Am I completely off the mark?


Somewhat. I'm sure that are people with the authoritarian "you must do as I do because I'm the only one in the universe that really exists" mind set, but most of us aren't like that. We simply dislike people who want to play the game counter to it's nature and who then try to get ccp to adapt the game to them, rather than them adapting to it.

If people want a theme park mmo, they should be playing Star Trek, eve is about pvp competition and what most other games would call "griefing".
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#111 - 2012-05-31 13:51:13 UTC
Drei Ontalas wrote:
Isn't most of the buying/selling/production already done in hi-sec anyway?
Even if it is, none of it is protected and can be disrupted at any point. It's not about the economy (although that plays in as well, since less stuff will be destroyed), but about the inequality between the rule sets by all the actors.

Quote:
Competition between who?
Between anyone and everyone who buys, sells, and uses the stuff being produced. Some will do it inside the bubble and be completely safe from all disruptions; some will do it outside of the bubble and won't be. That makes it brain-dead to do anything of the kind outside of the bubble and you've just ruined EVE at its very core.

All production must be open to disruption, or you've just robbed the game of its largest PvP area.
Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#112 - 2012-05-31 13:52:23 UTC
Ban Bindy wrote:

Stop Hulkageddon - I mean stop the Infinite event.

No no no no, hulkageddon forever! I see only pros to this, why can't you?
Drei Ontalas
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#113 - 2012-05-31 13:54:44 UTC
Virgil Travis wrote:
Drei Ontalas wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Drei Ontalas wrote:
It would still be EVE. The greatness of the game is that it can accomodate a multiplicity of play styles.

In theory a hi-sec bubble of theme park could accommodate those most hated of players from WOW, SWTOR etc. This would bump up CCP's resources. It would also mean more players would be able to find their feet before joining the "real" EVE.
No it wouldn't, unless, in that same theory, those players were unable to interact with the market; were unable to engage in science and industry; were unable to mine, do exploration, and collect loot and salvage from missions.

Without those restrictions, the rest of EVE cannot accommodate the levels of protections inside that bubble and it would abused to no end.


How would it be abused? I accept that some people would do their level best to abuse the system. They already do. But what would the nature of the abuse be?


Does it really matter what the nature of the abuse would be? It just doesn't fit with the concept of EVE, plain and simple, it not's required to make EVE 'better' and those of us who actually signed up for the game as it's presented by CCP don't wish to see the sandbox ruined by those coming from other games and trying to turn it into the same rubbish that they played elsewhere.



My idea, as unfleshed out as it is, is that this "bubble" would seed players into the rest of EVE where they could find more enagaging game play. I admit that it requires more thought, particularly as to how it might impact on the wider economy, but would it have an overall negative impact on other players? The dog-eat-dog aspect of the rest of the Universe wouldn't change.
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#114 - 2012-05-31 13:55:12 UTC
Mainly because your representatives on the forums try to nerf our playstyles.

Things are only impossible until they are not.

Darth Tickles
Doomheim
#115 - 2012-05-31 14:06:42 UTC
Nobody "hates" hisec players.

End thread.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#116 - 2012-05-31 14:14:39 UTC
Drei Ontalas wrote:


My idea, as unfleshed out as it is, is that this "bubble" would seed players into the rest of EVE where they could find more enagaging game play. I admit that it requires more thought, particularly as to how it might impact on the wider economy, but would it have an overall negative impact on other players? The dog-eat-dog aspect of the rest of the Universe wouldn't change.


Let's say you're a nullsec alliance leader, and you need 250 million trit. you could mine it in nullsec, where it's dangerous ... OR you simply mine it in (or buy it from) hisec, where it's 100% safe, and jump it directly to where you need it to be.

NOW do you see why it's a problem?

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia

Virgil Travis
Non Constructive Self Management
#117 - 2012-05-31 14:17:55 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
Drei Ontalas wrote:


My idea, as unfleshed out as it is, is that this "bubble" would seed players into the rest of EVE where they could find more enagaging game play. I admit that it requires more thought, particularly as to how it might impact on the wider economy, but would it have an overall negative impact on other players? The dog-eat-dog aspect of the rest of the Universe wouldn't change.


Let's say you're a nullsec alliance leader, and you need 250 million trit. you could mine it in nullsec, where it's dangerous ... OR you simply mine it in (or buy it from) hisec, where it's 100% safe, and jump it directly to where you need it to be.

NOW do you see why it's a problem?


He probably doesn't.

Unified Church of the Unobligated - madness in the method Mamma didn't raise no victims.

Cpt Roghie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#118 - 2012-05-31 14:18:48 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
Drei Ontalas wrote:


My idea, as unfleshed out as it is, is that this "bubble" would seed players into the rest of EVE where they could find more enagaging game play. I admit that it requires more thought, particularly as to how it might impact on the wider economy, but would it have an overall negative impact on other players? The dog-eat-dog aspect of the rest of the Universe wouldn't change.


Let's say you're a nullsec alliance leader, and you need 250 million trit. you could mine it in nullsec, where it's dangerous ... OR you simply mine it in (or buy it from) hisec, where it's 100% safe, and jump it directly to where you need it to be.

NOW do you see why it's a problem?



Sounds like more fun to mine it in 0.0 with Alliance mates.

Or just buy it. 0.0 safer than High sec anyway.

This could be fun.

Drei Ontalas
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#119 - 2012-05-31 14:25:17 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
Drei Ontalas wrote:


My idea, as unfleshed out as it is, is that this "bubble" would seed players into the rest of EVE where they could find more enagaging game play. I admit that it requires more thought, particularly as to how it might impact on the wider economy, but would it have an overall negative impact on other players? The dog-eat-dog aspect of the rest of the Universe wouldn't change.


Let's say you're a nullsec alliance leader, and you need 250 million trit. you could mine it in nullsec, where it's dangerous ... OR you simply mine it in (or buy it from) hisec, where it's 100% safe, and jump it directly to where you need it to be.

NOW do you see why it's a problem?


1.Wouldn't everyone else just get it in the same way? They would still have to transport it all the way to null so the effort is not really reduced.

2. You can't really do much with tritanium by itself. There are many things that cannot be sourced from hi-sec originally. Tritanium can be but morphite can't . So on and so forth...
Ana Vyr
Vyral Technologies
#120 - 2012-05-31 14:32:51 UTC
Ticarus Hellbrandt wrote:
Eve is a pvp game, it doesnt do the economy any good having half the population sitting about running missions and never being blown up in years of playing.



Yeah, despite this having been the case for 8 years now. Great logic there. The game's still here in case you missed it. If you were right, this game would have folded up years ago.

It hasn't because this game has a gameplay option for everybody who cares to defeat the learning curve. As soon as you remove the wide array of options, including a non-ship combat vs other players option, like mining for example, then the game truly will fold.