These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

CCP - Just remove low sec and highsec!- this whole topic is becoming tedious
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#41 - 2012-06-07 15:41:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
evereplicant wrote:
3 years with all the changes, expansions its stayed stagnant.... the facts are there, open your eyes
…and see that the number of subscribers has grown.


Oh, and just to answer that other dribble…
evereplicant wrote:
1) WHo said its up to the players?
The game mechanics. Oh, and the game design. Oooh. And CCP (what with being behind said game mechanics and design, and using that reasoning in all their advertising).

What you think doesn't matter. The fact remains that it's up to you to provide the consequences for low security status, because that's how the security status mechanic is designed: it's very specifically there to let you hunt ze bad guys and provide the larger consequences for being bad guys.

Quote:
2) Why do you always have to be so pedantic?
Because it leaves less room for people to try to wiggle out and create silly half-truths (which are universally fully false). Here, too, the simple fact remains: it's pretty much impossible to bypass the consequences, and if you mange, it's an exploit. Saying that there are no consequences is blatantly false.

Quote:
3) The cost can be relatively miniscule compared to the prize shall we say, hence not balanced.
Cost is not a balancing factor. What you're describing is a good thing.

Quote:
MY point I am making is dont have pretend restrictions, boundries if in fact they dont really exist.
The only one having any kind of pretend restrictions here are you. The game certainly doesn't have them and nothing to that effect has ever been claimed. In fact, the opposite is kind of a selling point: that there are no restrictions beyond what the players create for themselves and others. Same goes for sec status and highsec: it is up to you to create and enforce any restrictions, and you have been given ample tools to do so. If you find the restrictions insufficient, then it's your own fault for not making them harsher.

What you are and what you do is completely besides the point, so I'm not missing it — I'm ignoring it because it utterly and completely irrelevant.
Shaera Taam
Khanid Prime Free Irregulars
#42 - 2012-06-07 16:20:59 UTC
what was it called when ccp had that whole day when concord went out for donuts and didnt answer 9-9-9?

"armageddon-day?" or something like that? granted, it was a little before my time...

lets give everyone an "armageddon-week." a whole week where sec rating and sec status is effectively meaningless...

can you imagine the carnage? in jita alone?

then we'll see how people feel about their precious hi sec...

/shrug

just an idea...

Thus Spake the Frigate Goddess!
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#43 - 2012-06-07 16:33:28 UTC
Shaera Taam wrote:
what was it called when ccp had that whole day when concord went out for donuts and didnt answer 9-9-9?

"armageddon-day?" or something like that? granted, it was a little before my time...

lets give everyone an "armageddon-week." a whole week where sec rating and sec status is effectively meaningless...

can you imagine the carnage? in jita alone?

then we'll see how people feel about their precious hi sec...

/shrug

just an idea...

If it was a temporary thing the effect would probably be limited, as long as people knew concord were coming back they'd simply put off logging on for a week.

Like after inferno, when local broke, I honestly know people who wouldn't log on because there were people in local in every system.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Spikeflach
Perkone
Caldari State
#44 - 2012-06-07 16:49:31 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:


Yep, I can. But shooting people is never a threat to a game about the conflicts that occur when people compete. That's why I didn't say they're a threat to my game. They're a threat to the game. Where they can do whatever they want. and so can everyone else.

Miners don't seem to understand that the "so can everyone else" part means that your activities can be disrupted by other players.


I believe the miners are a direct threat to Your game. It's pretty easy for a person to assume that some game balancing change will be the death of a game.

I know a few people who thought it would kill eve to rebalance supercaps and rebalance dreads.

What else did CCP fix which killed eve?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#45 - 2012-06-07 16:52:13 UTC
Spikeflach wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


Yep, I can. But shooting people is never a threat to a game about the conflicts that occur when people compete. That's why I didn't say they're a threat to my game. They're a threat to the game. Where they can do whatever they want. and so can everyone else.

Miners don't seem to understand that the "so can everyone else" part means that your activities can be disrupted by other players.


I believe the miners are a direct threat to Your game. It's pretty easy for a person to assume that some game balancing change will be the death of a game.

I know a few people who thought it would kill eve to rebalance supercaps and rebalance dreads.

What else did CCP fix which killed eve?


The ability to shoot who you want, when you want, is a core design principle of EvE. The game is a platform for unrestricted inter-player conflict.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
darmwand
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2012-06-07 18:08:12 UTC
As countless others have said in countless other threads, the consequences are real and they matter. As an honorable gentleman from low-sec, I am no-longer welcome in high-sec and need to use friends, alts and black frog to get replacement ships. Plus wherever I am, anyone can kill me at any time without station or gate guns intervening. Those are direct consequences of CONCORD disagreeing with my lifestyle and I had to learn to live with them. Saying that the security statuses don't matter is just plain wrong.

Also, last night was the (I think) first time I ever ganked somebody in high-sec (a miner, seems to be the thing du jour) and it was a direct consequence of all these threads here. I figured if everybody's talking about it, I might as well give it a go and while that Catalyst shall be missed, it is kinda fun and I think it might just happen again. So there's your consequence: start some more threads about it and I'm sure you'll manage to eventually get everybody to join in!

"The pen is mightier than the sword if the sword is very short, and the pen is very sharp."
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#47 - 2012-06-07 19:58:13 UTC
Velicitia wrote:

1. This should have been posted in F&I.


evereplicant wrote:


Either make REAL consequences and make it harder for people to gank in highsec/low sec or remove it altogether




2. going "outlaw" (i.e. -5.00 sec status) makes one a valid target for anyone, anywhere, at anytime without CONCORD intervention. How about you give them the consequences of going outlaw, hmm?

Love it... i'm going to fly around hi-sec looking for the random -5 guy. Nah, he'll just be in a pod and un-catchable... Besides being like, totally random...

Roll

(p.s. - not a hi-sec dweller, not a carebear - rather someone who spent a year -9.9, and traveled all over hi-sec - in a pod. never got caught Pirate ).

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#48 - 2012-06-07 19:59:48 UTC
evereplicant wrote:
WHARGARBLEEEEEEE



How 'bout no Scott?

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#49 - 2012-06-07 20:05:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Asuri Kinnes
Jafit wrote:
I think that the time has come to colonise W-space and turn it into the new nullsec. Let these whining highsec shitbag publords have New Eden.


  • Gradually allow sovereignty in C1-C4 W-space, rebranded to W-null
  • Allow the construction of outposts and stargates (not private jump bridges) in WH sov.
  • Never allow supercaps or CSAAs into the new W-null, let it remain un-spoiled by supercaps and hotdrops.
  • Allow WH stabilizing structure to preserve links to New Eden should you ever feel the need to go back, or rescue people.
  • Open up new, deeper traditional and higher class W-space for further exploration and preservation of current WH gameplay.


Flame on!

Consider yourself flamed. WH's work, quit trying to **** up WH's with broken null-mechanics...

Tippia wrote:
evereplicant wrote:
3 years with all the changes, expansions its stayed stagnant.... the facts are there, open your eyes
…and see that the number of subscribers has grown.

Weren't you the one who pointed out that concurrent players online was a pretty decent indicator of subscriptions? I think in one of the "don't nerf incursions threads".

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#50 - 2012-06-07 20:40:17 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Weren't you the one who pointed out that concurrent players online was a pretty decent indicator of subscriptions? I think in one of the "don't nerf incursions threads".
They were back when they regularly published population graphs that could be correlated with the server graphs. Now, they've stopped doing that (and haven't provided any for 1½ years) so all we have are spot information such as them having broken 400k subscribers.
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#51 - 2012-06-07 20:44:05 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Weren't you the one who pointed out that concurrent players online was a pretty decent indicator of subscriptions? I think in one of the "don't nerf incursions threads".
They were back when they regularly published population graphs that could be correlated with the server graphs. Now, they've stopped doing that (and haven't provided any for 1½ years) so all we have are spot information such as them having broken 400k subscribers.

Thank you.

Basically we have no new numbers to correlate with concurrent online users then - other than the typical Northern Hemisphere Summer draw down?

We should be within normal limits for that then - so, 4th quarter 2012 numbers are the data point we're looking for, i.e. concurrent users going up some (as of now) indefinable %.

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
Wilma Lawson
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#52 - 2012-06-07 20:44:27 UTC
OP, really, why do you play Eve. It sounds like you need to take a break for awhile.
Knus'lar
The Unspoken Ones
Hole Control
#53 - 2012-06-07 20:46:15 UTC
evereplicant wrote:
The boundaries seems to be getting more and more blurred. You are allowing any one and everyone to go anywhere and everywhere and do whatever they like without consequence.

Fine lets just remove securtiy altogether because quite frankly its meaningless and pointless, because game mechanics allows you to circumvent said 'supposed restrictions'

Low sec you can tank gate guns EASILY. If you are deliberately shooting stuff in low sec well you dont really care what happens.
High sec well you can gank anything EASILY with little consequence, and the fact is your probably ganking noobs and non pvpers so they probably wont even fight back, and probably cant becuase they wont be fit for pvp.

The restrictions that the supposed low sec/high sec have against offenders as stated is pointless because they can EASILY get passed it.

In low sec again i can easily kill a ship in say a nano cane on the gate and still have time to grab the loot and get away before i even hit say half shields and thats solo!

If you want to make eve a complete pvp only game then remove the superficial barriers and stop pretending that there are consequences to your actions when frankly there is none. Stop pretending to high sec players they are fairly safe by creating artificial boundaries. Because when all said and done we all pratically liv ein a nullsec environment where anyone can be killed and anytime.

Either make REAL consequences and make it harder for people to gank in highsec/low sec or remove it altogether



Working as intended anyone?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#54 - 2012-06-07 22:58:00 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Weren't you the one who pointed out that concurrent players online was a pretty decent indicator of subscriptions? I think in one of the "don't nerf incursions threads".
They were back when they regularly published population graphs that could be correlated with the server graphs. Now, they've stopped doing that (and haven't provided any for 1½ years) so all we have are spot information such as them having broken 400k subscribers.

Thank you.

Basically we have no new numbers to correlate with concurrent online users then - other than the typical Northern Hemisphere Summer draw down?

We should be within normal limits for that then - so, 4th quarter 2012 numbers are the data point we're looking for, i.e. concurrent users going up some (as of now) indefinable %.



Pretty much. We're not going to be able to (without way more statistical analysis effort than I'm willing to do) tell if HAG is causing a reduction in subs until around when the Summer Drawdown would normally be ending. If the returning numbers don't rise to pre-drawdown levels, HAG (or some Incarna II: Electric Monocle shit later in the summer) might be a cause of it.

But we won't know for a while.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Previous page123