These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Hi-sec as we know it has to come to an end ASAP, and here´s why.

Author
Lipbite
Express Hauler
#101 - 2012-12-14 14:34:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Lipbite
Couple of days ago I wanted to go to certain null system, 9 jumps into null. High => null gateway system was camped by 45 (!!!) people. Every other system on my path was inhabited by 1-3 pilots (i.e. gate camps are more than 50% of null activities). And I've checked amount of popped ships in gateway system - around 40 during 24 hours. Considering those campers can play maximum 12 hours where were ~90 of them during 24 hours and they popped less than 1/2 of ship per day per camper.

1/2 of popped ship per hardcore PvP player per day. No wonder people in null are so bored they are going nuts while sitting in gate camps resulting in posts with strange ideas on these forums.

Condolences. And - come to hi/low sec maybe?
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#102 - 2012-12-14 14:49:20 UTC
Sarmea Moon wrote:
Phil Da Agony wrote:
Sarmea Moon wrote:

Long answer- you don't like it, feel free to build a million thrashers and hi sec suicide about it. No one is stopping you.



Ive already did it, but this idea is way more profitable for everyone than thrasher suicide ganks.

Seriously I expected a little bit more from you people than premade one liners, noone has come yet with a good point on why this idea is bad, just cheap trolling and nothing else.



To boil down the 40 page thread you are ignoring- this is a stealth "nerf hi sec, they make more money than I do" null bear thread. It is NOT more profitable for hi sec dwellers, all it does is attempt to force more targets for null and low sec dwellers. It isn't going to happen. High sec breaks up, high sec dwellers leave the game.

It just means the remainder all move into the couple systems around Jita and don't move. It would tighten up the game, not spread it out.

CCP got rid of superhighways, so the player base moved from Yulai to Jita. You break up high sec, and everyone will move into whatever the biggest island left is.

As I said- you don't like it, suicide about it. Enough suicide ganks, and people leave overpopulated areas. Suicide enough Hulks, they quit flying hulks. Quit looking to CCP to change the box to what YOU want, and start moving the sand yourself.

No, Jita came to be when the highway system (which is still in place) was introduced. It bypassed Yulai and Yulai died.

Ease and speed of travel in EvE is one of the larger general problems the game faces today, and undermines nearly every aspect of the game.

If the long standing and very valid arguments for making travel more dangerous between the different faction area's is never introduced, then at the very least the highway system in EvE needs to go away... along with jump bridge networks and the current system of cyno bridging.

True story.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Randolph Rothstein
whatever corp.
#103 - 2012-12-14 14:53:00 UTC
seems like OP wants really big changes to current game

which will never happen because money

which means he will probably quit soon

so can i have your stuff?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#104 - 2012-12-14 15:05:01 UTC
Phil Da Agony wrote:
Ok guise, lets seriously talk about it...


I have.

I agree that hi-sec as we know it could definitely be improved*. I have laid out a change in perspective and made the case for a review of the purpose of hi-sec. I'm interested in your assesment.

But be aware that "fixing" hi-sec won't make other things that are broken any less broken.



*The same could be said of sov 0.0. The same is being said of 0.0.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Kirin Sky
Wormhole Hunters
#105 - 2012-12-14 15:43:53 UTC
I'm new to this, but here is what I have observed since starting:

I ran across information about nullsec corps forming massive alliances.
I keep hearing about "seas of blue" and boredom at gate camps.
I see people complaining that too many players are in high-sec, and therefore they lack targets.



Now, maybe I am ignorant of some socio-political issues in EVE, but it would seem to me that if these massive nullsec alliances were destroyed then everyone would go back to shooting each other and it wouldn't feel like a target deprived environment.

w-Space is best-Space!

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#106 - 2012-12-14 15:50:50 UTC
Kirin Sky wrote:
I'm new to this, but here is what I have observed since starting:

I ran across information about nullsec corps forming massive alliances.
I keep hearing about "seas of blue" and boredom at gate camps.
I see people complaining that too many players are in high-sec, and therefore they lack targets.



Now, maybe I am ignorant of some socio-political issues in EVE, but it would seem to me that if these massive nullsec alliances were destroyed then everyone would go back to shooting each other and it wouldn't feel like a target deprived environment.


Seeing as how you are new to this let me, a bitter vet, let you in on a secret.

EVE has always had superpowers, people have always cried that the end is nigh, blueballs everywhere. Then the evil empire implodes, a struggle happens and the winner becomes the new evil blue empire killing EVE.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#107 - 2012-12-14 15:57:14 UTC
Kirin Sky wrote:
I'm new to this, but here is what I have observed since starting:

I ran across information about nullsec corps forming massive alliances.
I keep hearing about "seas of blue" and boredom at gate camps.
I see people complaining that too many players are in high-sec, and therefore they lack targets.



Now, maybe I am ignorant of some socio-political issues in EVE, but it would seem to me that if these massive nullsec alliances were destroyed then everyone would go back to shooting each other and it wouldn't feel like a target deprived environment.


You know that the CFC has just concluded a year long campaign, that the HBC are cleaning up the last bits of their 6 month campaign, and that there's still an active war going on around the Nulli/Gypsy vs SOLAR/-A- front in the south?

The "all of null is blue and no fights happen" line is more of a general discussion fox-news style talking point than anything which has a relationship with the facts.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Ana Vyr
Vyral Technologies
#108 - 2012-12-14 16:03:34 UTC
Instead of revamping what we already have, I would rather see something entirely new.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#109 - 2012-12-14 16:16:25 UTC
I love the way people will suggest something, and use null sec diplomacy as both a reason for the change and to say that the change itself will stop what the players are doing.

It would seem that some people play EVE who have a serious misfire somewhere between the right and left ear.

See, I play a game called EVE that provides players the tools to build their own empires either though force, diplomacy, or both. In order for there to be safety the players have to actively create it.

Some of you, on the otherhand, have this absurd idea that null sec is supposed isn't supposed to allow the players to decide exactly what happens in null sec, and instead is intended to a giant deathmatch.



I hate to break it to some of you.
On top of having really horrible ideas, you're also playing a game you clearly don't understand. Some of you keep expecting CCP to create clearly structured areas of the game that are inteded for specific activeties and nothing else.

Some of you keep looking at EVE as:
High sec = PvE
Low sec = Red vs Blue pvp
Null sec = FFA PvP

That is wrong.
Null sec is the player driven counterpart to high sec. Some of you wouldn't like it if caldari players were allowed to fly into gallente space and shoot you without concord intervention, even though both factions ARE AT WAR. One corp in null is not "required" to shoot another null corp just because they're both in null.

Some of you insist on continually asking CCP to remove the best aspects of EVE, the PLAYER DRVEN parts.
I genuinely wish you guys would go play something else.

Suggestions that are aimed at doing things like "breaking up the blue blob" are unfounded and rediculous given the nature of EVE being a game that's all about player drven content.

Peace in null sec is working as intended, because we the players decided there would be piece; not developer imposed mechanics. Some of you are awful EVE players; who can't seem to come to terms with the fact that EVE is a sandbox.
Ginger Barbarella
#110 - 2012-12-14 16:24:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Ginger Barbarella
"Has come to an end AS SOON AS POSSIBLE"

Wut?!?!?!?!?!

Edit: tried reading the rest of the post, concluded OP was using a bad Google translator. Anyone want to give me a quick translation?

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac

Jenn aSide
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#111 - 2012-12-14 16:25:42 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
I love the way people will suggest something, and use null sec diplomacy as both a reason for the change and to say that the change itself will stop what the players are doing.

It would seem that some people play EVE who have a serious misfire somewhere between the right and left ear.

See, I play a game called EVE that provides players the tools to build their own empires either though force, diplomacy, or both. In order for there to be safety the players have to actively create it.

Some of you, on the otherhand, have this absurd idea that null sec is supposed isn't supposed to allow the players to decide exactly what happens in null sec, and instead is intended to a giant deathmatch.



I hate to break it to some of you.
On top of having really horrible ideas, you're also playing a game you clearly don't understand. Some of you keep expecting CCP to create clearly structured areas of the game that are inteded for specific activeties and nothing else.

Some of you keep looking at EVE as:
High sec = PvE
Low sec = Red vs Blue pvp
Null sec = FFA PvP

That is wrong.
Null sec is the player driven counterpart to high sec. Some of you wouldn't like it if caldari players were allowed to fly into gallente space and shoot you without concord intervention, even though both factions ARE AT WAR. One corp in null is not "required" to shoot another null corp just because they're both in null.

Some of you insist on continually asking CCP to remove the best aspects of EVE, the PLAYER DRVEN parts.
I genuinely wish you guys would go play something else.

Suggestions that are aimed at doing things like "breaking up the blue blob" are unfounded and rediculous given the nature of EVE being a game that's all about player drven content.

Peace in null sec is working as intended, because we the players decided there would be piece; not developer imposed mechanics. Some of you are awful EVE players; who can't seem to come to terms with the fact that EVE is a sandbox.


I wonder all the time why the peole who like space ships but not snadbox/conflcit aren't playing Star Trek Online instead. I play it a bit as a change up, when I don't wanna think real hard lol.

I suspect it's just an aspect of human nature playing out.

Some of us (people like me) go places and, if we don't like what we see and there are alternatives, we leave and find something better. Others go to a place, find that place not to their liking and rather than leave they stay and try to remake the new place into what THEY want it to be (despite how the place already works or the wishes of any natives already there).

I've experienced these"change now" types in every aspect of life and it's sad to have to put up with them in EVE of all things.
Hedion's oracle
Naari LLC
#112 - 2012-12-14 16:30:44 UTC
Opens map, looks at map, wow looks like theres moar PvP in highsec than null, nuff said. Next!

Error: Working As intended

Kirin Sky
Wormhole Hunters
#113 - 2012-12-14 16:35:44 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
I love the way people will suggest something, and use null sec diplomacy as both a reason for the change and to say that the change itself will stop what the players are doing.

It would seem that some people play EVE who have a serious misfire somewhere between the right and left ear.

See, I play a game called EVE that provides players the tools to build their own empires either though force, diplomacy, or both. In order for there to be safety the players have to actively create it.

Some of you, on the otherhand, have this absurd idea that null sec is supposed isn't supposed to allow the players to decide exactly what happens in null sec, and instead is intended to a giant deathmatch.



I hate to break it to some of you.
On top of having really horrible ideas, you're also playing a game you clearly don't understand. Some of you keep expecting CCP to create clearly structured areas of the game that are inteded for specific activeties and nothing else.

Some of you keep looking at EVE as:
High sec = PvE
Low sec = Red vs Blue pvp
Null sec = FFA PvP

That is wrong.
Null sec is the player driven counterpart to high sec. Some of you wouldn't like it if caldari players were allowed to fly into gallente space and shoot you without concord intervention, even though both factions ARE AT WAR. One corp in null is not "required" to shoot another null corp just because they're both in null.

Some of you insist on continually asking CCP to remove the best aspects of EVE, the PLAYER DRVEN parts.
I genuinely wish you guys would go play something else.

Suggestions that are aimed at doing things like "breaking up the blue blob" are unfounded and rediculous given the nature of EVE being a game that's all about player drven content.

Peace in null sec is working as intended, because we the players decided there would be piece; not developer imposed mechanics. Some of you are awful EVE players; who can't seem to come to terms with the fact that EVE is a sandbox.


Not sure if you are implying my post here, but I just want to be clear that what I was saying had nothing whatsoever to do with CCP. I was only making observations and when I said "alliances were destroyed" I did not mean either A) CCP should do so, or B) that it is a good idea. Frankly, I do not know enough about the game to know if it is a good idea or not, but I do know that it is entirely in the player's hands.

Basically, all I was saying was: if you want null-sec (or even high-sec) to be more violent, go make it more violent.

w-Space is best-Space!

Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#114 - 2012-12-14 16:42:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Natsett Amuinn
Kirin Sky wrote:


Not sure if you are implying my post here, but I just want to be clear that what I was saying had nothing whatsoever to do with CCP. I was only making observations and when I said "alliances were destroyed" I did not mean either A) CCP should do so, or B) that it is a good idea. Frankly, I do not know enough about the game to know if it is a good idea or not, but I do know that it is entirely in the player's hands.

Basically, all I was saying was: if you want null-sec (or even high-sec) to be more violent, go make it more violent.

It was directed towards the part of your suggestion that implied it would create more conflict in null.

That implies you think there needs to be more conflic in null, and that there's a problem with null having relative peace.

I'm not apposed to the idea of more dangerous trade routes between high sec areas, only that there's some sort of need to break up "blue blobs" as if something isn't working as intended in null sec.

Players working together isn't a broken mechanic that needs fixing.



PS: I"m saying null sec is as "violent" as THE PLAYERS MAKE IT. It's the point of null. Developer imposed mechanics don't make it what it is, the tools the developers gave us allow us to shape null how we see fit.
Kirin Sky
Wormhole Hunters
#115 - 2012-12-14 16:48:27 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Kirin Sky wrote:


Not sure if you are implying my post here, but I just want to be clear that what I was saying had nothing whatsoever to do with CCP. I was only making observations and when I said "alliances were destroyed" I did not mean either A) CCP should do so, or B) that it is a good idea. Frankly, I do not know enough about the game to know if it is a good idea or not, but I do know that it is entirely in the player's hands.

Basically, all I was saying was: if you want null-sec (or even high-sec) to be more violent, go make it more violent.

It was directed towards the part of your suggestion that implied it would create more conflict in null.

That implies you think there needs to be more conflic in null, and that there's a problem with null having relative peace.

I'm not apposed to the idea of more dangerous trade routes between high sec areas, only that there's some sort of need to break up "blue blobs" as if something isn't working as intended in null sec.

Players working together isn't a broken mechanic that needs fixing.



PS: I"m saying null sec is as "violent" as THE PLAYERS MAKE IT. It's the point of null. Developer imposed mechanics don't make it what it is, the tools the developers gave us allow us to shape null how we see fit.



Yea, I'm cool with it. Personally, it feels like everything is fine. Sandbox is sandbox, and I understand what that means.

I was only commenting on the idea that I've seen some nullsec players advocate, which is to destroy highsec in order to provide them more action. My solution to that *if it is a problem* would just be for them to just start shooting each other.

I really don't think CCP should make highsec any safer than it is, or force nullsec to be a constant battlefield. I realize now that my initial post was probably very easy to misinterpret, which is why I wanted to put these and clarify what I was trying to say.

w-Space is best-Space!

Metal Icarus
Wraithguard.
The Wraithguard.
#116 - 2012-12-14 16:48:40 UTC
As a person who lives on a highsec island, where the only entrance to the constellation is to go through 2 constellations of lowsec, I feel that it is actually a good idea.

More lowsec, more highsec islands.

+1
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#117 - 2012-12-14 16:54:00 UTC
Kirin Sky wrote:



Yea, I'm cool with it. Personally, it feels like everything is fine. Sandbox is sandbox, and I understand what that means.

I was only commenting on the idea that I've seen some nullsec players advocate, which is to destroy highsec in order to provide them more action. My solution to that *if it is a problem* would just be for them to just start shooting each other.

I really don't think CCP should make highsec any safer than it is, or force nullsec to be a constant battlefield. I realize now that my initial post was probably very easy to misinterpret, which is why I wanted to put these and clarify what I was trying to say.

I would have prefered the OP to be worded as simply as post 116.

That's all.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#118 - 2012-12-14 16:58:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
I have a better idea: Let's just scramble everything together. Not only is high sec broken up by low and null sec; now low sec would be broken up by high sec and null sec, and null sec by low and high sec. What's good for the goose is surely good for the gander. Right?

Seriously:

1) There are high sec islands exactly like you describe, right now. Go visit them. You can see the extent of their appeal right now. And I say that as someone who lived in one for a while, and learned to enjoy its particular charms;

2) Your idea means that new industrialists will be trapped in little islands--potentially, in competition with far more skilled and experienced industrialists--until they get blockade runners and the skills to fly them competently. Meanwhile, veteran industrialists will be blockade-running and jump-freighting things all over the place;

3) Freighters will become rare indeed, driving up prices of bulk commodities, because neither blockade runners nor jump freighters have much in the way of cargo space, and jump freighters have an overhead. Veteran pilots will still be able to navigate freighters through any non-pipeline lowsec and nullsec, because they know what they're doing and they have scouting alts, but that's just another advantage given to veterans. (Right now, there are broad swaths of lowsec and nullsec that are safer for freighters than a certain high sec pipeline is);

4) Not everyone who uses industrial ships is an industry toon. Everyone needs stuff hauled around. If you ghettoize high sec, you make it much harder for new players to move around;

On the up side, I'm sure that Red Frog and PUSH would profit considerably from the change, although any of their contractors that didn't have the skills to fly a BR, a JF or a carrier would be SOL.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#119 - 2012-12-14 17:04:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Dersen Lowery wrote:
I have a better idea: Let's just scramble everything together. Not only is high sec broken up by low and null sec; now low sec would be broken up by high sec and null sec, and null sec by low and high sec. What's good for the goose is surely good for the gander. Right?

Seriously:

1) There are high sec islands exactly like you describe, right now. Go visit them. You can see the extent of their appeal right now. And I say that as someone who lived in one for a while, and learned to enjoy its particular charms;

2) Your idea means that new industrialists will be trapped in little islands--potentially, in competition with far more skilled and experienced industrialists--until they get blockade runners and the skills to fly them competently. Meanwhile, veteran industrialists will be blockade-running and jump-freighting things all over the place;

3) Freighters will become rare indeed, driving up prices of bulk commodities, because neither blockade runners nor jump freighters have much in the way of cargo space, and jump freighters have an overhead. Veteran pilots will still be able to navigate freighters through any non-pipeline lowsec and nullsec, because they know what they're doing and they have scouting alts, but that's just another advantage given to veterans. (Right now, there are broad swaths of lowsec and nullsec that are safer for freighters than a certain high sec pipeline is);

4) Not everyone who uses industrial ships is an industry toon. Everyone needs stuff hauled around. If you ghettoize high sec, you make it much harder for new players to move around;

On the up side, I'm sure that Red Frog and PUSH would profit considerably from the change, although any of their contractors that didn't have the skills to fly a BR, a JF or a carrier would be SOL.


By logical extension (and I'm not dissagreeing with the foundation of your assessment) new pilots strengthen and develop local market hubs, while vets keep commerce flowing (in a reduced amount) between the various commerce hubs.

This is an EXCELLENT way to strengthen the overall EvE economy while promoting a stronger system of local trade hubs.

Edit: Additionally, I don't think anyone would have an objection to islands of High Sec deep in Low or Null sec, but that might be a little bit too handy for Null Sec alliances industrial activities.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Doc Severide
Doomheim
#120 - 2012-12-14 17:15:30 UTC
Phil Da Agony wrote:
...and thats a fact not an opinion...
And thats get you instantly tuned OUT....One mans facts are another mans bullshit...