These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

NERF Hisec?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#141 - 2014-04-18 06:49:15 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:
Max Deveron wrote:
as an indy toon i must disagree with this topic or at least the idea the OP has behind it. An ultrasec area with ability to provide minerals and stuff to the rest of EvE would be disasterous to the economy. Such an area would HAVE to require no ability to affect it meaning no useful minerals, no ability to uild stuff, no bounty from rats...absolutely no way to make isk or build anything at all.

Otherwise the only solution to it would be everyone includng thos of us indy guys that enjoy eve for what it is would be to camp and gate that leads to this ultrasec and destroy anything that comes out of it ofr just the simple reason it is entering our beloved home.

I dont like some things in this game for their metagame ability.........but even i would definitely shoot you on site for this thread. Go back to your theme park games, you deserve to be ganked. and Quit trying to ruin EvE.


It's only your opinion that it would be disastrous. It might be disastrous "to you", but only because you choose to make it so. You would have the option to not care about the veldspar mined in the Ultra-Sec.

If 1% of all empire space was converted to "Ultra-sec", it's hard to imagine, at least for me, this being a "disaster".

Trammel Server.

History has a tendency to repeat itself.

How did you Veterans start?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#142 - 2014-04-18 06:49:22 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
leavemymomalone idiot wrote:

6. to me it seems that the only people crying about this idea are the players who like to kill unarmed ships.



So? That is a playstyle supported by CCP, why should it just disappear? Because people don't want to bother with defending themselves? Free tip, slick, there already is a game for those people, it's called Star Trek Online.


It wouldn't disappear. High Sec would still exist as an area of operation for people to execute their desired playstyle.


The original post suggests otherwise, try reading it. It is heavily implied that this is intended to be a "solution" to ganking. As if ganking is a problem, and not clearly intended gameplay.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
leavemymomalone idiot
State War Academy
Caldari State
#143 - 2014-04-18 06:51:19 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
leavemymomalone idiot wrote:

6. to me it seems that the only people crying about this idea are the players who like to kill unarmed ships.



So? That is a playstyle supported by CCP, why should it just disappear? Because people don't want to bother with defending themselves? Free tip, slick, there already is a game for those people, it's called Star Trek Online.



star trek online, never played it. as for supported play style, it would not disappear from eve, just ultra-sec.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#144 - 2014-04-18 06:54:09 UTC
leavemymomalone idiot wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
leavemymomalone idiot wrote:

6. to me it seems that the only people crying about this idea are the players who like to kill unarmed ships.



So? That is a playstyle supported by CCP, why should it just disappear? Because people don't want to bother with defending themselves? Free tip, slick, there already is a game for those people, it's called Star Trek Online.



star trek online, never played it. as for supported play style, it would not disappear from eve, just ultra-sec.


So, this is for you. Go ahead and finish this sentence.

"Perfect safety should ever happen because..."

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#145 - 2014-04-18 06:54:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Divine Entervention
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


The original post suggests otherwise, try reading it. It is heavily implied that this is intended to be a "solution" to ganking. As if ganking is a problem, and not clearly intended gameplay.


That's only your choosing to focus on the reason for the suggestion rather than the suggestion itself.

He clearly states:

"Almost impossible to gank in these areas. i say almost, but i mean NEVER. "

So space that exists where pilots can fly around and not worry about being ganked. That does not equate to "make everyone in high sec" invulnerable.

If 1% of empire was converted to Ultra-sec, the other 99% would still exist as is. 1900 empire systems, 19 of them would be Ultra-Sec. Regardless of OP claims, which seems to be the motivation behind his suggestion, it doesn't detract from the fact that with this implementation, the rest of High Sec would still exist, the rest of Low sec would still exist, and all of null sec would still exist, giving everyone the opportunity to continue playing their desired play style.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#146 - 2014-04-18 06:57:17 UTC
If you want to talk about 1%, then rookie systems already exist.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Moonlit Raid
Doomheim
#147 - 2014-04-18 06:57:51 UTC
Risk averse.

If brute force isn't working, you're just not using enough.

Please Note: Any advice given comes with the caveat that nothing will be suitable for every situation.
leavemymomalone idiot
State War Academy
Caldari State
#148 - 2014-04-18 06:59:10 UTC
to paraphrase other posters

i say HTFU

if the risk adverse want to play in ultra-sec then its down to the eve pilots to find a way round that.

fighting within the rules getting round the rules and getting a kill against the odds.

ultra-sec would make the game harder and it would seem that most posters actually want to make it easier.

nerfing hisec would just give them new easy targets to pop.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#149 - 2014-04-18 06:59:34 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
If you want to talk about 1%, then rookie systems already exist.


So to fall in line with the OP's suggestion, convert rookie systems to Ultra-Sec so no shots can be fired at other players.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#150 - 2014-04-18 07:00:28 UTC
leavemymomalone idiot wrote:
to paraphrase other posters

i say HTFU

if the risk adverse want to play in ultra-sec then its down to the eve pilots to find a way round that.

fighting within the rules getting round the rules and getting a kill against the odds.

ultra-sec would make the game harder and it would seem that most posters actually want to make it easier.

nerfing hisec would just give them new easy targets to pop.


I would say HTFU, if the risk averse want to be safe, then it's up to them to work for safety.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Cassandra Aurilien
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#151 - 2014-04-18 07:00:38 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
leavemymomalone idiot wrote:

6. to me it seems that the only people crying about this idea are the players who like to kill unarmed ships.



So? That is a playstyle supported by CCP, why should it just disappear? Because people don't want to bother with defending themselves? Free tip, slick, there already is a game for those people, it's called Star Trek Online.


It wouldn't disappear. High Sec would still exist as an area of operation for people to execute their desired playstyle.


What is the obsession people have with removing conflict from a game based around conflict?

If I want a co-operative "we're all the same team" game, I play GW2. If I wanted space PVE, I'd play STO. If I want conflict, EVE. Why this fascination with trying to change EVE into something that it's not?
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#152 - 2014-04-18 07:02:29 UTC
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
leavemymomalone idiot wrote:

6. to me it seems that the only people crying about this idea are the players who like to kill unarmed ships.



So? That is a playstyle supported by CCP, why should it just disappear? Because people don't want to bother with defending themselves? Free tip, slick, there already is a game for those people, it's called Star Trek Online.


It wouldn't disappear. High Sec would still exist as an area of operation for people to execute their desired playstyle.


What is the obsession people have with removing conflict from a game based around conflict?

If I want a co-operative "we're all the same team" game, I play GW2. If I wanted space PVE, I'd play STO. If I want conflict, EVE. Why this fascination with trying to change EVE into something that it's not?


Conflict wouldn't be removed from the entire game, only from a few selected systems. All the conflict can still exist everywhere else. High sec would still be there for people to do whatever it is they want to do. If you want the conflict, go to high-sec and below.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#153 - 2014-04-18 07:03:14 UTC
This entire thread:

Vocal Minority: "We want to be 100% safe in this PvP game, so no other players can mess with us!"

Everyone else: "Lol, then put some effort into defending yourself, or go play a single player game instead"

Vocal Minority: "We can't be bothered with that! CCP should do it for us with heavy handed, binary and immersion breaking mechanics!"

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#154 - 2014-04-18 07:05:17 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:
Conflict wouldn't be removed from the entire game, only from a few selected systems.

And basically, **** that as an idea.

There is no need to limit people's playstyle in any system.

Leave it as is.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#155 - 2014-04-18 07:05:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Sibyyl
leavemymomalone idiot wrote:
i say HTFU

I think you don't understand this term. Someone else said this about EVE which I find to be true: EVE does not reward effort, it rewards risk.

If ultrasec is zero risk (which is what you want it to be) it should have zero income and zero funs per hour.

Edit: Grammar pvp is hard.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
leavemymomalone idiot
State War Academy
Caldari State
#156 - 2014-04-18 07:07:39 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:
leavemymomalone idiot wrote:
i say HTFU

I think you don't understand this term. Someone else said this about EVE which I find to be true: EVE does not reward effort, it rewards risk.

If ultrasec is zero risk (which is what you want it to be) it should have zero income and fun-per-hour potential, too.



i never said ultra-sec was zero risk. there is no such thing as zero risk in eve. as soon as you undock you are at risk.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#157 - 2014-04-18 07:08:45 UTC
No thanks.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#158 - 2014-04-18 07:09:55 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
Conflict wouldn't be removed from the entire game, only from a few selected systems.

And basically, **** that as an idea.

There is no need to limit people's playstyle in any system.

Leave it as is.


So according to you, since everyone's specifically desired play style should be allowed to exist in any system, then you advocate having Mercoxit available in every system because a "Mercoxit Miner" who chooses his playstyle to be "only mine mercoxit" should be able to do his play style in any system.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#159 - 2014-04-18 07:12:01 UTC
leavemymomalone idiot wrote:
i never said ultra-sec was zero risk. there is no such thing as zero risk in eve. as soon as you undock you are at risk.

Yes you really did, though.

Quote:
Almost impossible to gank in these areas. i say almost, but i mean NEVER.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#160 - 2014-04-18 07:14:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
leavemymomalone idiot wrote:
i never said ultra-sec was zero risk. there is no such thing as zero risk in eve. as soon as you undock you are at risk.

Except that pretty much you did, just in different words.

Zero risk (or almost) = zero reward (or almost).

Give an inch and people will take a mile.

Much better to take and inch and tell everyone to HTFU.

Nerf the existing safety of highsec would be a better way to go. Split the different empires by lowsec regions so you can't AFK your way from one empire to another. Introduce mission agents that create competition between players for scarce resources and generate conflict. Make ducking wardecs more difficult and make it legal to avoid Concord.

Luckily, CCP won't listen to that package of ideas either. Because just like creating fairyfloss land, swinging it to far the other way would also be detrimental.

Fortunately for us all, CCP care about all playstyles, while those people that come here and call for nerfs to other players choices act out of pure selfishness.