These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#341 - 2014-04-19 01:47:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Divine Entervention wrote:
Except you can't disprove that EvE isn't a PvE game because you know it's impossible since PvE is a major minor feature of EvE. So is mining, so is industry, so is exploring. PvP can exist and does exist, but it's not the entirety of EvE, there is so much more to it than that.

you're the only one playing the "EVE is whatever I say it is!" game, when you say EvE is only a PvP game and nothing more.
FYP

You do realise that pretty much everything you can do in Eve, including the PvE either directly or indirectly affects other players?

PvP is not confined to shooting each other in the face, it emcompasses everything, including mining, missioning, production, exploration and trading.

TL;DR if it affects another player it is PvP, nearly everything you do in Eve potentially affects other players; therefore Eve is primarily a PvP game. CCP states it multiple times, as in no less than 12 times, in the New Player FAQ

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#342 - 2014-04-19 01:51:45 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
Except you can't disprove that EvE isn't a PvE game because you know it's impossible since PvE is a major feature of EvE. So is mining, so is industry, so is exploring. PvP can exist and does exist, but it's not the entirety of EvE, there is so much more to it than that.

you're the only one playing the "EVE is whatever I say it is!" game, when you say EvE is only a PvP game and nothing more.

You do realise that pretty much everything you can do in Eve, including the PvE either directly or indirectly affects other players?

PvP is not confined to shooting each other in the face, it emcompasses everything, including mining, missioning, production, exploration and trading.

TL;DR if it affects another player it is PvP, nearly everything you do in Eve potentially affects other players, ergo Eve is primarily a PvP game. CCP states it multiple times, as in no less than 12 times, in the New Player FAQ


The developer stating outright that EVE is a PvP game is just their opinion, and they're allowed to have that opinion.

Roll

"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
#343 - 2014-04-19 01:51:54 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
Except you can't disprove that EvE isn't a PvE game because you know it's impossible since PvE is a major feature of EvE. So is mining, so is industry, so is exploring. PvP can exist and does exist, but it's not the entirety of EvE, there is so much more to it than that.

you're the only one playing the "EVE is whatever I say it is!" game, when you say EvE is only a PvP game and nothing more.

You do realise that pretty much everything you can do in Eve, including the PvE either directly or indirectly affects other players?

PvP is not confined to shooting each other in the face, it emcompasses everything, including mining, missioning, production, exploration and trading.

TL;DR if it affects another player it is PvP, nearly everything you do in Eve potentially affects other players, ergo Eve is primarily a PvP game. CCP states it multiple times in the New Player FAQ


Then the argument of "no ultra-sec because it removes PvP" is invalid because "nearly everything you do in EvE potentially affects other players". Which means an Ultra-Sec could exist if it's rewards were balanced to the lower end of the spectrum to entice players to want to migrate into High, Low, and Null sec.

Just as it exists with High-Sec, the most profitable areas of eve are within the lower to non-security systems, to entice people to want to profit from them. With proper balancing, "Ultra-Sec" could exist because within the system, there would be "pvp" just like you mention almost everything being.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#344 - 2014-04-19 01:55:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Divine Entervention wrote:

Then the argument of "no ultra-sec because it removes PvP" is invalid because "nearly everything you do in EvE potentially affects other players". Which means an Ultra-Sec could exist if it's rewards were balanced to the lower end of the spectrum to entice players to want to migrate into High, Low, and Null sec.

Just as it exists with High-Sec, the most profitable areas of eve are within the lower to non-security systems, to entice people to want to profit from them. With proper balancing, "Ultra-Sec" could exist because within the system, there would be "pvp" just like you mention almost everything being.
Your logic, it is illogical.

For ultrasec to succeed it needs to be completely disconnected from the rest of Eve, which cannot happen because Eve, unlike every other MMO out there has only one shard; disconnecting a portion of Eve from the rest of the universe breaks the sandbox.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#345 - 2014-04-19 01:56:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Divine Entervention wrote:
Then the argument of "no ultra-sec because it removes PvP"

No ultra-sec because it removes choice.

It's a self-centred, selfish suggestion where players want everything they feel is valuable in the game, while limiting the play choices of other players in those systems.

If someone wants the choice to shoot at a rock, someone else should also have the choice to shoot at a ship.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#346 - 2014-04-19 02:01:56 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:

Then the argument of "no ultra-sec because it removes PvP" is invalid because "nearly everything you do in EvE potentially affects other players". Which means an Ultra-Sec could exist if it's rewards were balanced to the lower end of the spectrum to entice players to want to migrate into High, Low, and Null sec.

Just as it exists with High-Sec, the most profitable areas of eve are within the lower to non-security systems, to entice people to want to profit from them. With proper balancing, "Ultra-Sec" could exist because within the system, there would be "pvp" just like you mention almost everything being.
Your logic, it is illogical.

For ultrasec to succeed it needs to be completely disconnected from the rest of Eve, which cannot happen because Eve, unlike every other MMO out there has only one shard; disconnecting a portion of Eve from the rest of the universe breaks the sandbox.


it's only your opinion that it needs to be completely disconnected. It's entirely possible for it to be balanced, connected, and still function within desirable parameters.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#347 - 2014-04-19 02:03:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Divine Entervention
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
Then the argument of "no ultra-sec because it removes PvP"

No ultra-sec because it removes choice.

It's a self-centred, selfish suggestion where players want everything they feel is valuable in the game, while limiting the play choices of other players in those systems.

If someone wants the choice to shoot at a rock, someone else should also have the choice to shoot at a ship.


He can, he can shoot at a ship in High, Low, and Null. No one is removing that choice, it's still there.

If he wants to remain in an environment where he can choose to shoot anyone anywhere, then he should stay out of Ultra Sec.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#348 - 2014-04-19 02:04:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Divine Entervention wrote:
He can, he can shoot at a ship in High, Low, and Null. No one is removing that choice, it's still there.

If he wants to remain in an environment where he can choose to shoot anyone anywhere, then he should stay out of Ultra Sec.

The same for all the other players.

If they want to shoot at rocks or npcs, or run missions etc., they can do that in highsec, lowsec or nullsec too.

No need for ultrasec at all.
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#349 - 2014-04-19 02:05:12 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
Then the argument of "no ultra-sec because it removes PvP"

No ultra-sec because it removes choice.

It's a self-centred, selfish suggestion where players want everything they feel is valuable in the game, while limiting the play choices of other players in those systems.

If someone wants the choice to shoot at a rock, someone else should also have the choice to shoot at a ship.


He can, he can shoot at a ship in High, Low, and Null. No one is removing that choice, it's still there.

If he wants to remain in an environment where he can choose to shoot anyone anywhere, then he should stay out of Ultra Sec.


Ultra sec would unbalance the viability of the EVE economy if it is possible to make any level of profit there.

Things are only impossible until they are not.
Cassandra Aurilien
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#350 - 2014-04-19 02:08:26 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:


it's only your opinion that it needs to be completely disconnected. It's entirely possible for it to be balanced, connected, and still function within desirable parameters.


It's also only your opinion that this is true. A zone where you are completely free from other players attacks would fall contrary to CCP's stated design philosophy for the game.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#351 - 2014-04-19 02:09:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Divine Entervention wrote:
It's entirely possible for it to be balanced, connected, and still function within desirable parameters.

How?

If ultrasec existed it would be exploited by older players; because they're in a far better position to take advantage of the benefits of such an area by virtue of their game knowledge than a newbie. It won't help newbies or less experienced players at all, thus rendering it invalid.

Would you ban players over a certain age from ultrasec? Ban certain ships?

Quote:
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
This applies here methinks.

You have me agreeing with masternerdguy, the apocalypse is nigh.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#352 - 2014-04-19 02:11:18 UTC
masternerdguy wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
Then the argument of "no ultra-sec because it removes PvP"

No ultra-sec because it removes choice.

It's a self-centred, selfish suggestion where players want everything they feel is valuable in the game, while limiting the play choices of other players in those systems.

If someone wants the choice to shoot at a rock, someone else should also have the choice to shoot at a ship.


He can, he can shoot at a ship in High, Low, and Null. No one is removing that choice, it's still there.

If he wants to remain in an environment where he can choose to shoot anyone anywhere, then he should stay out of Ultra Sec.


Ultra sec would unbalance the viability of the EVE economy if it is possible to make any level of profit there.


Which is why you keep the level of profit low. Also, changes CCP has made to EvE unbalanced the economy, yet they were still implemented.

With the shift to production coming up, people could be prevented from placing Player owned structures within the Ultra Sec systems to prevent industrial oriented players from flocking there en-masse.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#353 - 2014-04-19 02:12:36 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
It's entirely possible for it to be balanced, connected, and still function within desirable parameters.

How?

If ultrasec existed it would be exploited by older players; because they're in a far better position to take advantage of the benefits of such an area by virtue of their game knowledge than a newbie. It won't help newbies or less experienced players at all, thus rendering it invalid.

Would you ban players over a certain age from ultrasec? Ban certain ships?

Quote:
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
This applies here methinks.

You have me agreeing with masternerdguy, the apocalypse is nigh.


Which is why you keep the maximum potential profit low. So even if "veterans" want to go to ultra sec and "abuse" ultra sec, they're still being given less profit compared to if they were performing more valuable actions elsewhere.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#354 - 2014-04-19 02:14:27 UTC
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:


it's only your opinion that it needs to be completely disconnected. It's entirely possible for it to be balanced, connected, and still function within desirable parameters.


It's also only your opinion that this is true. A zone where you are completely free from other players attacks would fall contrary to CCP's stated design philosophy for the game.






But considering that "everything is PvP", PvP still exists even in Ultra-Sec. If you're going to consider mining "pvp" because it has an influence, then the mining happening in ultra-sec is still "pvp" because it's influenceable by players activity.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#355 - 2014-04-19 02:18:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Divine Entervention wrote:


Which is why you keep the maximum potential profit low. So even if "veterans" want to go to ultra sec and "abuse" ultra sec, they're still being given less profit compared to if they were performing more valuable actions elsewhere.
I can absolutely guarantee that we'd find ways of making huge profits from ultrasec, and we'd be doing it in a risk free environment, which renders the risk/reward equation invalid; thus breaking the sandbox.

Everytime CCP change anything about the game, someone figures out a way to profit from it, Eve is a game of unintended mechanics and consequences. CCP know this and are usually quite impressed with the unintended things we do with new stuff, they call it emergent gameplay.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#356 - 2014-04-19 02:21:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Divine Entervention
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:


Which is why you keep the maximum potential profit low. So even if "veterans" want to go to ultra sec and "abuse" ultra sec, they're still being given less profit compared to if they were performing more valuable actions elsewhere.
I can absolutely guarantee that we'd find ways of making huge profits from ultrasec, and we'd be doing it in a risk free environment, which renders the risk/reward equation invalid.

Everytime CCP change anything about the game, someone figures out a way to profit from it, Eve is a game of unintended mechanics and consequences. CCP know this and are usually quite impressed with the unintended things we do with new stuff.


I don't think you can guarantee it. Especially because it hasn't even been introduced yet, which is why an attempt at a discussion to figure out a way to balance the implementation is being derailed by people who have no desire to participate in the purposed discussion, yet are still taking the time out of their day to post in a thread they don't actually want to talk about.

With asteroids being a finite resource, with limited production capabilities, with limited mission levels, and limitation limitations, an area of space where players cannot shoot each other very well possibly exist in a manner that does not ruin/destroy EvE, unless people choose to use the idea of such a creation being the catalyst for them to consider EvE ruined/destroyed.
Cassandra Aurilien
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#357 - 2014-04-19 02:24:09 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:


it's only your opinion that it needs to be completely disconnected. It's entirely possible for it to be balanced, connected, and still function within desirable parameters.


It's also only your opinion that this is true. A zone where you are completely free from other players attacks would fall contrary to CCP's stated design philosophy for the game.






But considering that "everything is PvP", PvP still exists even in Ultra-Sec. If you're going to consider mining "pvp" because it has an influence, then the mining happening in ultra-sec is still "pvp" because it's influenceable by players activity.


In the OP's suggestion, even bumping players would be disallowed. That would mean that it would not be even be possible influence other players directly, only to attempt to use up resources before they do.

That might be the design philosophy of the "Hungry Hungry Hippos MMO - Space Hippos", but last time I checked, that was not this game. Correct me if EVE has taken a strange turn in the last few hours that I'm unaware of.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#358 - 2014-04-19 02:25:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Divine Entervention wrote:
But considering that "everything is PvP", PvP still exists even in Ultra-Sec. If you're going to consider mining "pvp" because it has an influence, then the mining happening in ultra-sec is still "pvp" because it's influenceable by players activity.

Yep, so that would need to be nerfed too. No mining in ultra-sec.

Also, it makes no logical sense that the Empires would provide this super safe zone for capsuleers but still allow known pirate faction npcs to roam around unchecked. The Empires would hunt them down just as strongly as they would hunt down a player that tried to agress another player. Nerf npc rats too. No NPCs in ultra-sec.

About the only thing would be a station to play market games. Ultra-sec would be such a small part of the market, that all other systems could more greatly affect the prices in ultra-sec than the reverse. No problem with that.
Dalto Bane
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#359 - 2014-04-19 02:26:40 UTC
There is, in essence, an Ultra-Secure spot in our very own Tranquility server at this very moment. It is called the dock. If one does not like staying docked, then they must brave the terrifying and blood ravaged 1.0-0.5 systems of New Eden, where at even given moment, they could forced against their will to interact with other pilots.

The thing is, I would venture to say that Eve's attrition has little to do with the risks of losing ships, and much more to do with the lack of immediate gratification that that Eve Online offers. The experience and excitement of Eve Online is one that grows over time. The more time, the higher the SP, the better the ship, and sometimes the better pilot you become. Its a niche that few gamers want to invest in, especially this day and age, and the ones that do, stay, the ones that don't leave. Some, leave and come back and see they missed a big part of what Eve is.

My fear is that if this Ultra-Sec were to happen, or if HS as it stands becomes anymore safe, the spark of excitement or thirst for revenge that sometimes takes hold and keeps some of the dedicated few newcomers will stop igniting the passion of wanting to log on and queue some skills, and then undock for the kill or be killed fights, or roids if that is your thing!

Drops Mic
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#360 - 2014-04-19 02:27:32 UTC
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:


it's only your opinion that it needs to be completely disconnected. It's entirely possible for it to be balanced, connected, and still function within desirable parameters.


It's also only your opinion that this is true. A zone where you are completely free from other players attacks would fall contrary to CCP's stated design philosophy for the game.






But considering that "everything is PvP", PvP still exists even in Ultra-Sec. If you're going to consider mining "pvp" because it has an influence, then the mining happening in ultra-sec is still "pvp" because it's influenceable by players activity.


In the OP's suggestion, even bumping players would be disallowed. That would mean that it would not be even be possible influence other players directly, only to attempt to use up resources before they do.

That might be the design philosophy of the "Hungry Hungry Hippos MMO - Space Hippos", but last time I checked, that was not this game. Correct me if EVE has taken a strange turn in the last few hours that I'm unaware of.


For the purpose of this discussion, yea, remove bumping within ultra sec. Make it so ships pass through each other. The direct influence players could have between each other would come into play considering that since asteroids are finite, one person could mine the rocks before another is able.