Crime & Punishment

You do, because your base of knowledge with regard to this issue is actually small. You can say that unlike myself, you were actually a high-sec carebear at one point, but how much exposure did you have because of that? You were a member of what, maybe half a dozen such corporations? That doesn't really compare with my hundreds.

And as far as CCP goes, I'm not naive enough to think that what they do doesn't have some kind of agenda behind it. We were actually pretty adamant about showing the lack of logic with regards to the justification for this change in two major threads in GD, and you know what happened? CCP locked those threads, saying that their decisions aren't up for discussion, once it became fairly obvious to everyone that their reasoning was flawed.

CCP does what CCP wants, because it's CCP. If it happens that it was a really bad decision, they know that they can just do their standard propaganda apology later, and the people will lap it up.


We never, never say with a straight face that ganking should be made easier. All we do is ask for the steady stream of nerfs to stop; we never ask for buffs. See, this is another strawman that the bears rely on, which is simply untrue.

And you're wrong with the second part of your argument as well. It has been proven false, in practice, in the past. Once again, you want to see how we act? Give us a reason to go where you are beyond feeding your capital fleets easy kills and throwing gfs in local. We're not after honorable MOBA-style spaceship gameplay; that's why most of us left 0.0 in the first place.

See, that's the thing; you're speaking from opinion, and I'm speaking from a plethora of empirical evidence.

The problem with arguing with you is that you consider yourself an authority on all matters, and it makes the arguments rather futile. It's like if I told you that the recent jump changes were great, because I own a carrier and have used it twice, and therefore have a great wealth of experience with regard to capital logistics. That would probably make you itch at least a little bit.

I can pretty safely say that out of the hundreds of high-sec corporations and alliances I've infiltrated, about half were significantly concerned with spies before ever getting their first war, and about 90% were significantly concerned with spies after their first war. I can also say that about 90% of these corporations were terribly managed, which plays into the argument significantly. The strength of my claim lies in the sheer sample size. How big is yours? How well managed were the corporations you were in?


You can't, and I can't. Only CCP can. That's why a rebalancing of high-sec rewards is long overdue.

Asking you to fly fat freighters in 0.0 to give us kills on principle alone is just as stupid as asking us to leave high-sec for 0.0 in order to give your bored pvpers easy stomps. In a player-driven sandbox with a realistic economic system, there need to be more rewards for conflict than "well, let's shoot each other, because I think that's what we should be doing..." And in high-sec, those rewards exist, on a much bigger scale than they do in null.

But as long as people ignorantly campaign for increased rewards and lower risks in high-sec, the "problem" is only going to be exacerbated.

So kills like this are full grown seals...
https://zkillboard.com/kill/44715915/

While kills like this are baby seals?
https://zkillboard.com/kill/44704245/

I had no idea buzzards were more powerful PVP ships than vargurs.

The fact of the matter is, most people, whether in lowsec or highsec, are looking for the easy kills. Your question is as stupid as asking why people dont crash a 40 man HAC gatecamp by themselves in a t1 cruiser, if they are looking for a good fight.

That poor, bullied, griefed, molested, tortured 2007 newbie.

According to Destiny, you're wrong. Even though null is full of PvE players, we all apparently PvE in highsec, because that's where all the profit is. Don't be listening to that dotlan and all it's stat's either, that's more of CCP feeding lies!

Pretty much everything after Crucible has made the game worse than it was before hand. Its when the pro-highsec "just one more nerf" garbage started.

E: You all need to just put Lucas Kell on ignore he received an extra dose of dumb from SMA

Except that's not what they've said at all. They said that players who don't get integrated into group based play tend to leave. That does not mean that all highsec players leave. Highsec players, believe it or not, once actually played together a lot more before you could slap infinite wardecs on any groups you fancy. Improvements should be made to allow players to better play together in highsec, not so gankers can have an easier time breaking groups apart.

Indeed conflict does, but conflict is not just "shooting other people". There are many forms of conflict. You don't want any other form though, what you want is easy kills. Tough.

Funnilly enough, I agree, I just don't agree that it needs to be looked at in a way of "how can we make it even easier for gankers and wardeccers to prevent people being able to play the way they want".

Same goes for you guys. What you want is self-serving, and you don't care that it makes the starting zone of the game look like 4chan in space. You want highsec to be lowsec. Tough, it's not.

That really depends on the change. Half of what get added is only a nerf from one point of view. Take this awox change, it reduces the simplest highsec awoxes to zero, of which there were a few but not really that many, yet it adds the opportunity for corps to recruit more, hopefully making them grow and more into more competitive content. I'd wager that it will be an overall net gain longer term.

Do they really? I've not seen a single suggestion for meaningful conflict from the type of players that complain about "the highsec nerfs", in fact when suggestions on changing wardecs to focus around fighting over something in particular come up, there's even more complaining. What most of them want is to be able to freely wardec and gank anything, as if them smashing though players who don't know any better is healthy for the game purely because it's "conflict". But just adding conflict for the sake of it isn't inherently good. If we just stuck everyone in fitted ships in a single system and had their ship respawn 60 seconds after death, that would increase conflict, but it wouldn't be good for the game.

But the current status quo obviously isn't working. Groups doing anything beside PvP don't really exist in highsec anymore. Take for example red-frog. They are forced to operate entirely from NPC corps, because it would be suicide to actually try to form an official corp which operated a freight service. Even just unofficially grouping up will attract attention to you. At present, the best idea to survive in highsec is to ignore everyone, stay spread out and evade combat attempts directed at you. Changes are needed to make it viable to work together for a common goal. And yes, many of those players are going to end up wanting to just shoot red crosses. Why does that matter though? If that's what they like doing then let them do it.

Obviously a certain level of risk is needed, but right now that risk is in the wrong places. It should be a good thing to form a corp with others, not a suicide pact, and it should be tougher to play solo and/or AFK.

And quite honestly, when I joined and all through my early years, highsec was safer than it is now. Mechanically it may have had certain things that should have made it harder, but the size of the population made it considerably easier than it is now, and being in a corp used to be pretty viable. Once they made it so wardecs could just be thrown about onto anyone without having to worry about decshields or increasing costs, decently sized player run corps pretty much went merc or went away. You didn't have corps deccing hundreds of industry corps a week back then.

It couldn't really have been much easier than it was, and it should have been nerfed years ago. This isn't even a change that been particularly petitioned for by either side, it's a change that CCP have chosen to do after reviewing their own research.

No, thats absurd.

First off, from a corp perspective, there are no shortage of corps that are recruiting. The problem facing corps and recruitiment, isnt that they couldnt recruit because of fear of Awoxing, its that they couldnt recruit because no one was willing to join their corp in the first place. Check the Corp recruitment corner of the forums. How many corps there, have reached their recruiting limit? How many even have over 100 players? There are literally no shortage of corps that are trying to actively recruit players.

Secondly, from a player perspective, this is even more absurd. As many people pointed out, no one invites new players into their corps just so they could awox them. And, as stated above, there are plenty of somewhat sh*tty, but not in the awoxing sort of way, corps that they can join.

So, given the above, how does removing awox(Sort of), increase the number of players in corps?

First off, the suggestion is within the complaints of how they want to stop the nerf from happening in the first place. But even then, the people who complain about the nerfs, stop complaining after a while, because they learn to accept it and move on. I mean, honestly, when was the last time you heard a ganker complain about how Mining barge HP was buffed, on the forums?

And yet, on the opposite side, we have people who constantly complain about ganking and bumping, while not lifting a finger to mitigate the risk, work around the problem and safely haul and mine.

Secondly, no, no one is asking for pure conflict to arise, out of nowhere. If they were, they would be asking for hisec to become lowsec, or remove concord. Surely this would be a maximum increase in conflict. But just because someone opposes the decrease conflict, making hisec safer, etc, doesnt mean they just want to add conflict.

Never said theres anything wrong with shooting red crosses. I do it a lot, as my sec status is a constant 5.0.

With regards to Red Frog, sure, thats because they specialize in moving in large, slow capital ships over long distances. They are doing their best to mitigate the chances of being destroyed. Nothing wrong with that.

But your claim of how its best to ignore everyone and stay spread out, is absurd. There are clearly groups that do and are dedicated to indy and mining. There are groups and corps that support and do PvE/missions, incursions. Just take a look at the recruitment page and see how many corps are recruiting mission runners, miners, indy, etc.

Also, its absurd to claim that that a larger group of players, should necessarily have it easier. The point about player owned corporations, is that you reap the benefits of having a large group of people with you. If you have, for example, 20 players who run missions, you, as the CEO get a bunch of isk in the form of taxes. The more players you have, the more taxes you have, and the more easier it is to contact and form up. But everything has a risk to it, as well as a reward, as it should be in Eve.

The only reason its a suicide pact, is because idiot CEOs who dont have the resources, knowledge and skills to run their Corp, recruit new players who dont know any better, and end up being wardecced. Its the individuals who are at fault, not the Corp system or wardecs.

Well, no, its absolutely possible to make it easier. Just have people be able to join a corp automatically, without the corp CEO/director/recruitment guy having to approve it, is one example. There were certainly ways they couldve complained how Awoxing could be easier. Instead, we had people complain about how they were awoxed and how it was stupid. The proof of this is on Minerbumping, which recorded a small percentage of Awoxes, and people kept complaining about it. So clearly, the complaints are coming from one side, asking for nerfs, and not the other side, asking for the game to be easier to awox/gank/greif/scam etc. No one was asking for awoxing to get easier.

But it's not. It's still just your word on corps you infiltrated. How do you still not get that no matter how much you believe it your opinion is your opinion.

Look. I'm not going to waste time arguing with you. The change is in. That is that. If you don't like it, sod off or HTFU. This is EVE.

I will however quickly respond to this. This would only be true if gankers were capable of exhausting all haulers. Since only a tiny fraction of haulers are ganked, then even if there were no other activities in highsec, there would be more than enough hauler to go round.

Honestly, I can;t believe a veteran player really thinks that gankers would just move on to other sections of space if miners and missioners vanished. That's simply not the case. Highsec will ALWAYS be where gankers live.