These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 nerf high sec?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Julius Priscus
#41 - 2013-07-18 06:13:06 UTC
Kyperion wrote:
so becoming a scumbag is actually the SAFEST way to play this game.... that is dumb.


cept one thing...

once you become an outlaw.. it gives EVERYONE the right to shoot first and not even bother with questions, and they don't have to worry about any side effects...
Kyperion
#42 - 2013-07-18 06:16:39 UTC
Julius Priscus wrote:
Kyperion wrote:
so becoming a scumbag is actually the SAFEST way to play this game.... that is dumb.


cept one thing...

once you become an outlaw.. it gives EVERYONE the right to shoot first and not even bother with questions, and they don't have to worry about any side effects...


....And no one does because most pirates actually WANT to get shot at first, so they can spring a few more alt accounts on the would be enforcer of civlized, non planet ape people.... nice try.
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#43 - 2013-07-18 06:16:45 UTC
Kyperion wrote:
so becoming a scumbag is actually the SAFEST way to play this game.... that is dumb.


Yea, about that...

Sugar Von MurdererTits : Jake Warbird gets my vote for most intriguing and attractive male character in Eve.
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#44 - 2013-07-18 06:19:15 UTC
Kyperion wrote:
It really makes no sense that the galactic Empires would allow perrenial pariahs in their midst. A negative security status should be a choice a player makes, and there should be the same level of risk involved as a solo miner/missioner... right now the people who like to ruin other people's game experience have FAR FAR more freedom and play with far less consequences than the solo missioner/miner... A pirate can destroy what it took a PVE player MONTHS to acquire, and grind back the status, ships lost (IF they even lose a ship) without ANY CONSEQUENCE WHATSOEVER.... so becoming a scumbag is actually the SAFEST way to play this game.... that is dumb.

neg status is a choice the player makes. they live with more risk than a mission runner as they can be shot anywhere and get chased by faction police. people who pirate have exactly the same freedoms as any other player, with exactly the same consequences. a pve'er can get into a pvp ship and destroy what it took a pvper months to acquire, and grind back the status (they wouldn't lose any from attacking a pirate but w/e), ships lost, (if they even lose a ship), which of course are the risks and consequences most everyone who pvps faces. so becoming a pirate is more dangerous than certain other ways to play this game, which makes sense, really.
Nuglord
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#45 - 2013-07-18 06:22:07 UTC
Bill Overbeck wrote:
Most of the anti high sec arguments seem to sum up to "This is a sandbox, but this is MY sandbox! Your input, nor presence, is not wanted!"

I think you're referring to most of the anti...anti-pvp arguments.

A lot of players that predominantly do PvE in highsec want it to be a "no-PvP zone".

I've argued this point in the past on other sites but it doesn't seem that with your blanket generalization that you're interested in a legitimate discussion.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#46 - 2013-07-18 06:22:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Kyperion wrote:
There is a distinct difference between price competition resource gathering and ganking missions or miners to satisfy some leftover unevolved impulse.
Not really, no. It's all about making money.

Quote:
It really makes no sense that the galactic Empires would allow perrenial pariahs in their midst.
Yes it does: they make tons of money from them, and they're not subject to the empires' laws or enforcement. Win-win.

Quote:
A negative security status should be a choice a player makes, and there should be the same level of risk involved as a solo miner/missioner.
So you're saying that they should buff piracy. Maybe remove the whole “-5 is a free target” bit? Would that be enough you think? Oh, and it is already a player choice, and if provide no more or less freedom than any other choice. That's because it's not good design to arbitrarily remove player freedom for no useful reason. Allowing the same freedoms to everyone is really the only viable option because anything else inherently unbalances everything and makes the game insanely broken.

Quote:
becoming a scumbag is actually the SAFEST way to play this game.... that is dumb.
No. It's pretty much intentional.

Quote:
And no one does because most pirates actually WANT to get shot at first, so they can spring a few more alt accounts on the would be enforcer of civlized, non planet ape people.... nice try.
No, they can't. The mechanics don't work that way. Poor try.
Kyperion
#47 - 2013-07-18 06:36:45 UTC
Nuglord wrote:
Bill Overbeck wrote:
Most of the anti high sec arguments seem to sum up to "This is a sandbox, but this is MY sandbox! Your input, nor presence, is not wanted!"

I think you're referring to most of the anti...anti-pvp arguments.

A lot of players that predominantly do PvE in highsec want it to be a "no-PvP zone".

I've argued this point in the past on other sites but it doesn't seem that with your blanket generalization that you're interested in a legitimate discussion.

The only argument for Highsec PVP is the devolved anti social scumbags like easy targets.... .5+ PVP is just free kills for pirates/gankers, there is no arguing that point. Let me loose in a game where I can PVP/PVE equally well in the same ship with the same fittings, pirate scumbags would get a comeuppance.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#48 - 2013-07-18 06:39:17 UTC
Kyperion wrote:
The only argument for Highsec PVP is
…that highsec is not, and never has been, any kind of PvP-free zone.
Kyperion
#49 - 2013-07-18 06:52:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Kyperion
Tippia wrote:
Kyperion wrote:
The only argument for Highsec PVP is
…that highsec is not, and never has been, any kind of PvP-free zone.

Calling A pirate/ganking set up VS a mission fit or mining barge "PVP" is equivalent to pitting Royce Gracie against a I.T. specialist in a fight to the death... and calling it a boxing match.

Its not 'PvP' its one player type/style lording over the others.



...Now, if they made it so mining barges had respectable tanks, could carry multiple flights of drones, and support ECM modules, and if they brought PVP/PVE fits together, then yeah, game on... but currently the only reason to PVP in highsec is if your some kind of epeen killmail seeker or just like to grief people. Its easy targets, without meaningful consequences.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#50 - 2013-07-18 06:55:17 UTC
Kyperion wrote:
Calling A pirate/ganking set up VS a mission fit or mining barge "PVP" is
…100% correct. It's a player going up against another player. Just because it doesn't live up to some arbitrary and irrelevant standard of yours doesn't change what it is.
Kyperion
#51 - 2013-07-18 06:59:34 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Kyperion wrote:
Calling A pirate/ganking set up VS a mission fit or mining barge "PVP" is
…100% correct. It's a player going up against another player. Just because it doesn't live up to some arbitrary and irrelevant standard of yours doesn't change what it is.



Player VERSUS player, usually entails some kind of reasonable match up. And YOUR standard is just as arbitrary as anybody elses.... again, you obviously like easymode.
Kyperion
#52 - 2013-07-18 07:00:41 UTC
*reposted* ...Now, if they made it so mining barges had respectable tanks, could carry multiple flights of drones, and support ECM modules, and if they brought PVP/PVE fits together, then yeah, game on... but currently the only reason to PVP in highsec is if your some kind of epeen killmail seeker or just like to grief people. Its easy targets, without meaningful consequences.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#53 - 2013-07-18 07:02:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Kyperion wrote:
[Player VERSUS player, usually entails some kind of reasonable match up.
No. It just entails players on both sides. What you're talking about is some kind of honourable duel, which is where the whole “arbitrary and irrelevant standard” comes in.

Ganker vs. a mission runner or a mining barge is PvP. There are no two ways about it. If it's not a kind of PvP you like, then maybe you should choose some other and more simplistic game that doesn't offer the kind of freedom of choice that EVE does.

Quote:
Now, if they made it so mining barges had respectable tanks, could carry multiple flights of drones, and support ECM modules, and if they brought PVP/PVE fits together, then yeah, game on.
This is already the case.

Quote:
but currently the only reason to PVP in highsec is if your some kind of epeen killmail seeker or just like to grief people.
…or to make money. Incidentally, griefing is a bannable offence in this game, so very few people PvP in highsec for that particular reason.
Kyperion
#54 - 2013-07-18 07:03:54 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Kyperion wrote:
Calling A pirate/ganking set up VS a mission fit or mining barge "PVP" is
…100% correct. It's a player going up against another player. Just because it doesn't live up to some arbitrary and irrelevant standard of yours doesn't change what it is.

Also, there is a MUCH higher probability of a solo Missioner losing a ship to an NPC than a pirate losing a ship to a miner/missioner.... Again, the 'must be pvp in highsec' crowd just wants free kills and epeen status NOT difficulty... if they wanted PVP 'RISK AND REWARD' they'd be in low/null.
Kyperion
#55 - 2013-07-18 07:06:05 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Kyperion wrote:
[Player VERSUS player, usually entails some kind of reasonable match up.
No. It just entails players on both sides. What you're talking about is some kind of honourable duel, which is where the whole “arbitrary and irrelevant standard” comes in.

Ganker vs. a mission runner or a mining barge is PvP. There are no two ways about it. If it's not a kind of PvP you like, then maybe you should choose some other and more simplistic game that doesn't offer the kind of freedom of choice that EVE does.

Quote:
Now, if they made it so mining barges had respectable tanks, could carry multiple flights of drones, and support ECM modules, and if they brought PVP/PVE fits together, then yeah, game on.
This is already the case.

Quote:
but currently the only reason to PVP in highsec is if your some kind of epeen killmail seeker or just like to grief people.
…or to make money. Incidentally, griefing is a bannable offence in this game, so very few people PvP in highsec for that particular reason.

Again, it boils down to the scumbags wanting cheap no risk kills
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#56 - 2013-07-18 07:06:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Kyperion wrote:
Also, there is a MUCH higher probability of a solo Missioner losing a ship to an NPC than a pirate losing a ship to a miner/missioner.
Not really, no, and even if it were, it doesn't particularly matter.

Oh, and if you feel that ganking is so much easier, why don't you engage in it yourself?

Quote:
if they wanted PVP 'RISK AND REWARD' they'd be in low/null
Why would they, when the targets and the money are in high?

Quote:
Again, it boils down to the scumbags wanting cheap no risk kills
How so? And so what? Oh, and why are they scumbags when what they do isn't much different from what, say, mission-runners do?
Xen Solarus
Furious Destruction and Salvage
#57 - 2013-07-18 07:13:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Xen Solarus
Basicly the supposed "L33t PvPers" turned lowsec into a wasteland, and have moved to highsec to find their steady supply of targets that don't shoot back. They spout their highsec hating rhetoric as justification for this. You can pretty much insert any opinion here, but it boils down to them forcing their own views on how the game should be played. Highsec carebears, industrials, AFK-miners, and anyone else that doesn't fit into their narrow view, are simply playing the game wrong.

Why hunt for targets in areas of space where they could potentially shoot back, when there is an entire region full of defenceless players that can't / won't / don't want to fight back?

EvE is a great game for exactly the reason that it allows people of different backgrounds and interests to play for a whole host of different reasons. So, don't listen to the haters, cause haters gonna hate. You go right ahead and play the game for whatever reason that gives you enjoyment, and protect yourself against cowardly gankers at all times.

Post with your main, like a BOSS!

And no, i don't live in highsec.  As if that would make your opinion any less wrong.  
Kyperion
#58 - 2013-07-18 07:20:28 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Kyperion wrote:
Also, there is a MUCH higher probability of a solo Missioner losing a ship to an NPC than a pirate losing a ship to a miner/missioner.
Not really, no, and even if it were, it doesn't particularly matter.

Oh, and if you feel that ganking is so much easier, why don't you engage in it yourself?

Quote:
if they wanted PVP 'RISK AND REWARD' they'd be in low/null
Why would they, when the targets and the money are in high?

Quote:
Again, it boils down to the scumbags wanting cheap no risk kills
How so? And so what? Oh, and why are they scumbags when what they do isn't much different from what, say, mission-runners do?


1.) I don't gank because I actually like a challenge, so I take oddball fits into missions... which actually takes some management and skill, unlike pirating in high sec.

2.) trying to have your cake and eat it are we? Lambast high sec for no risk, then want to freely engage ridiculously easy targets in high sec claiming its somehow risky?

3.) Mission runners kill NPC pirates, who shoot back, and can actually hurt the player.... pirates engage or trick people who are in suboptimal fits and are minding their own business trying to enjoy a game that they are actually PAYING for as opposed to your typical plexed pirate multibox player.
Uma D
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#59 - 2013-07-18 07:22:41 UTC
Xen Solarus wrote:


Why hunt for targets in areas of space where they could potentially shoot back, when there is an entire region full of defenceless players that can't / won't / don't want to fight back?



Could you please give me a link explaining the game mechanic which prevents people in high sec to defend themselves? The only reason people in high sec are easy to kill is the fact that they refuse to work in a team.

Who is stopping you from using a command ship in a mining fleet in high sec that will boost your tank, to make it a lot harder for suicide gankers to kill you? Who is stopping you from escorting freighters with logistics ships and scouting trade routes before you fly your freighter through there?

Who is forcing you to fly around in PvE fitted ships solo when you are at war?

If you are an easy target in high sec, the only reason for that is that you choose to be one.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#60 - 2013-07-18 07:24:11 UTC
Kyperion wrote:
1.) I don't gank because I actually like a challenge, so I take oddball fits into missions... which actually takes some management and skill, unlike pirating in high sec.
So you've never actually tried your hand at ganking and have no idea about the challenge.

Quote:
2.) trying to have your cake and eat it are we? Lambast high sec for no risk, then want to freely engage ridiculously easy targets in high sec claiming its somehow risky?
Engaging those targets is inherently risky in numerous ways. It also creates the risk that highsec lacks, so no. It's making the cake so there's something to eat. Also you, you can't eat the cake without having it, you know…

Quote:
3.) Mission runners kill NPC pirates, who shoot back, and can actually hurt the player.
…same as any other ship.