These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Thoughts on improving the game

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#121 - 2016-11-01 17:40:23 UTC
Steffles wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Steffles wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Steffles wrote:

High - very dangerous
Low - Very dangerous
Null - Extremely safe

IN short CCP screwed the entire risk / reward game up and they have no real solution to fix it.

Let me guess, you are a highsec miner?

Nope IM Infinity Ziona and former owner of L Dopa both of whom reside in and fight in the most active PvP systems in EvE.

Lol, and where are this most active "PvP systems"?

Lets just say somewhere you don't get to hide behind NPC police to get your kills, ie the non-consensual PvP part of the game where CODE is too scared to operate :)

Why would I be scared of nullsec. I thought it was "extremely safe"?

Evil RatKid
Tristan Valentina
Moira.
#122 - 2016-11-01 18:01:53 UTC
While I am in favor of a place where people can play the game they want to. Eve is a game all about risk and the idea that there are different risks in different Sec status. I have always like the idea of a version of higher sec where people can be safe but, make very little money. The big problem I see with this is that it is removing a lot of risk from the industrial side of the game. That risk would need to be replaced.

Risk and reward is supposed to be the driving factor of EVE, that and relationships. While grinding industry safely would be nice that really is a gameplay loop for a different sort of game.

Scanning in highsec is complete crap you should not be able to do it. The risk to the Ganker should be that I am flying a Freighter with nothing in it but Fredos.
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#123 - 2016-11-01 18:19:10 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Steffles wrote:

Lets just say somewhere you don't get to hide behind NPC police to get your kills, ie the non-consensual PvP part of the game where CODE is too scared to operate :)


This is the entire problem with high sec people. This is exactly WHY CODE exists. The "non-consensual pvp" part of EVE is called New Eden, even the 16% of it called High Sec.

Once you know that , CODE because a non-entity. High Sec people refuse to know that.

Speaking of dumb...

CODE exists because a large proportion of the player base are hyper-sensitives, its emotionally traumatic for them to lose ships, it feels like they're being bullied at school again and they'll do anything to avoid that.

Enter the non-consensual:

Null Carebear - These people will drop an absurd amount of bubbles on a dead end null branch - they will stay aligned while ratting, mining, missioning and dock up whenever a neutral comes into system. They are by and large, unassailable. If you campy them they will play an alt, most likely a cheap frig miner or an exploration char. They won't have a killboard other than perhaps a few early just starting EvE trauma ganks of perhaps a shuttle or barge.

Null F1 Monkey - These people will sit in large herds of logi / dps, engaging single players or small gangs and warping to a citadel or POS at the slightest hint of the smallest possibility. They will very likely have alt spies in enemy fleet chats and coms to the reduce the threat of ship destruction from the 0.001% to 0.0001%. They can't be too careful. They typically will have close to 99.9% ship kill efficiency and a killboard so green it resembles the lush fields of grass that is the grazing habitat of the animal they most closely resemble - mas irony.

High Sec - Generic Ganker (CODE, random thrasher, lobotomized Bonobo given a PC experiment at DARPA) - A very disparate group of people and monkeys. Almost certainly triggered by the word's "your fired!!". Almost certainly alts of the above two they want to experience the exhilaration of blowing up someones ship on a regular basis (because the above former never get to fight and the above latter rarely gets to the wreck before the other 200 people on the kill) and getting that phat T1 indy lootz. Given the horrible horrible risk that is solo or small gang pvp Generic Ganker invented the ammo ship - a ship that "You're supposed to lose", its akin to the brown paper bag with the stale sandwich that "They were supposed to steal" at school in early traumahood. Thus was born the T1 Thrasher or fleet of T1 Thrashers that have no risk attached, since "they're supposed to die".

All the above are forms of consensual pvp or PvP avoidance. They are no elements of risk involved and no real means of loss.

vs

Everyone else including so called "high sec risk averse carebears" such as:

1: The mission runner - the guy who undocks millions of isk worth of ship and mods knowing that he might lose it and that it might set him back days if not weeks depending on his play time.

2. The hauler - the guy who undocks millions, to multiple billions, knowing that he might lose it and that it might set him back days, weeks and possibly months depending on his play time.

3. Everyone else whose not a risk averse dicjockey.


Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#124 - 2016-11-01 18:31:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Steffles wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Steffles wrote:

Lets just say somewhere you don't get to hide behind NPC police to get your kills, ie the non-consensual PvP part of the game where CODE is too scared to operate :)


This is the entire problem with high sec people. This is exactly WHY CODE exists. The "non-consensual pvp" part of EVE is called New Eden, even the 16% of it called High Sec.

Once you know that , CODE because a non-entity. High Sec people refuse to know that.

Speaking of dumb...

CODE exists because a large proportion of the player base are hyper-sensitives, its emotionally traumatic for them to lose ships, it feels like they're being bullied at school again and they'll do anything to avoid that.

Enter the non-consensual:

Null Carebear - These people will drop an absurd amount of bubbles on a dead end null branch - they will stay aligned while ratting, mining, missioning and dock up whenever a neutral comes into system. They are by and large, unassailable. If you campy them they will play an alt, most likely a cheap frig miner or an exploration char. They won't have a killboard other than perhaps a few early just starting EvE trauma ganks of perhaps a shuttle or barge.

Null F1 Monkey - These people will sit in large herds of logi / dps, engaging single players or small gangs and warping to a citadel or POS at the slightest hint of the smallest possibility. They will very likely have alt spies in enemy fleet chats and coms to the reduce the threat of ship destruction from the 0.001% to 0.0001%. They can't be too careful. They typically will have close to 99.9% ship kill efficiency and a killboard so green it resembles the lush fields of grass that is the grazing habitat of the animal they most closely resemble - mas irony.

High Sec - Generic Ganker (CODE, random thrasher, lobotomized Bonobo given a PC experiment at DARPA) - A very disparate group of people and monkeys. Almost certainly triggered by the word's "your fired!!". Almost certainly alts of the above two they want to experience the exhilaration of blowing up someones ship on a regular basis (because the above former never get to fight and the above latter rarely gets to the wreck before the other 200 people on the kill) and getting that phat T1 indy lootz. Given the horrible horrible risk that is solo or small gang pvp Generic Ganker invented the ammo ship - a ship that "You're supposed to lose", its akin to the brown paper bag with the stale sandwich that "They were supposed to steal" at school in early traumahood. Thus was born the T1 Thrasher or fleet of T1 Thrashers that have no risk attached, since "they're supposed to die".

All the above are forms of consensual pvp or PvP avoidance. They are no elements of risk involved and no real means of loss.

vs

Everyone else including so called "high sec risk averse carebears" such as:

1: The mission runner - the guy who undocks millions of isk worth of ship and mods knowing that he might lose it and that it might set him back days if not weeks depending on his play time.

2. The hauler - the guy who undocks millions, to multiple billions, knowing that he might lose it and that it might set him back days, weeks and possibly months depending on his play time.

3. Everyone else whose not a risk averse dicjockey.




This is the 'fail' atitude, the attitude that says "hey, look at those other guys i don't like" while totally failing to understand their own situation.

Nothing you typed had anything to do with 'consensual pvp',they are simply styles of play you don't like.EVE Online has universal non-consensual pvp mechanics. The ONE exception is a policy exception that isn't enforced by mechanic means (the rule about pvping new players in a new player system, which the game allows but that may be punished at the discretion of the GMs).

The above demonstrates the fundamental truth of EVE, that you are never ever safe in space even in high sec,and that even when you do things 100% right you can still be blown up by other players against your will. THAT is EVE's non-consensual pvp mechanic at work..

It's been that way since 2003 and people have complained about it since 2003, which is stupid because the danger of surprise,unwanted pvp is the single best thing about EVE, it's one of the few things that gives the game any value.

So goon about how terrible f1 monkeys are etc. It's not their fault that they are playing the game correctly (ie being in a fleet with Logi so as to not die easily) while people like you are playing it wrong (ie taking stupid risks and dying in avoidable pvp gank situations in high sec, the place where magical space police spawn to punish your attacker and save you if you just stay alive long enough).
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#125 - 2016-11-01 18:37:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Steffles
Jenn aSide wrote:
Steffles wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Steffles wrote:

Lets just say somewhere you don't get to hide behind NPC police to get your kills, ie the non-consensual PvP part of the game where CODE is too scared to operate :)


This is the entire problem with high sec people. This is exactly WHY CODE exists. The "non-consensual pvp" part of EVE is called New Eden, even the 16% of it called High Sec.

Once you know that , CODE because a non-entity. High Sec people refuse to know that.

Speaking of dumb...

CODE exists because a large proportion of the player base are hyper-sensitives, its emotionally traumatic for them to lose ships, it feels like they're being bullied at school again and they'll do anything to avoid that.

Enter the non-consensual:

Null Carebear - These people will drop an absurd amount of bubbles on a dead end null branch - they will stay aligned while ratting, mining, missioning and dock up whenever a neutral comes into system. They are by and large, unassailable. If you campy them they will play an alt, most likely a cheap frig miner or an exploration char. They won't have a killboard other than perhaps a few early just starting EvE trauma ganks of perhaps a shuttle or barge.

Null F1 Monkey - These people will sit in large herds of logi / dps, engaging single players or small gangs and warping to a citadel or POS at the slightest hint of the smallest possibility. They will very likely have alt spies in enemy fleet chats and coms to the reduce the threat of ship destruction from the 0.001% to 0.0001%. They can't be too careful. They typically will have close to 99.9% ship kill efficiency and a killboard so green it resembles the lush fields of grass that is the grazing habitat of the animal they most closely resemble - mas irony.

High Sec - Generic Ganker (CODE, random thrasher, lobotomized Bonobo given a PC experiment at DARPA) - A very disparate group of people and monkeys. Almost certainly triggered by the word's "your fired!!". Almost certainly alts of the above two they want to experience the exhilaration of blowing up someones ship on a regular basis (because the above former never get to fight and the above latter rarely gets to the wreck before the other 200 people on the kill) and getting that phat T1 indy lootz. Given the horrible horrible risk that is solo or small gang pvp Generic Ganker invented the ammo ship - a ship that "You're supposed to lose", its akin to the brown paper bag with the stale sandwich that "They were supposed to steal" at school in early traumahood. Thus was born the T1 Thrasher or fleet of T1 Thrashers that have no risk attached, since "they're supposed to die".

All the above are forms of consensual pvp or PvP avoidance. They are no elements of risk involved and no real means of loss.

vs

Everyone else including so called "high sec risk averse carebears" such as:

1: The mission runner - the guy who undocks millions of isk worth of ship and mods knowing that he might lose it and that it might set him back days if not weeks depending on his play time.

2. The hauler - the guy who undocks millions, to multiple billions, knowing that he might lose it and that it might set him back days, weeks and possibly months depending on his play time.

3. Everyone else whose not a risk averse dicjockey.




This is the 'fail' atitude, the attitude that says "hey, look at tyhose other guys i don't like" while totally failing to0 understand their own situation.

Nothing you typed had anything to do with 'consensual pvp',they are simply styles of play you don't like.EVE Online has universal non-consensual pvp mechanics. The ONE exception is a policy exception that isn't enforced by mechanic means (the rule about pvping new players in a new player system, which the game allows but that may be punished at the discretion of the GMs).

The above demonstrates the fundamental truth of EVE, that you are never ever safe in space even in high sec,and that even when you do things 100% right you can still be blown up by other players against your will. THAT is EVE's non-consensual pvp mechanic at work..

It's been that way since 2003 and people have complained about it since 2003, which is stupid because the danger of surprise,unwanted pvp is the single best thing about EVE, it's one of the few things that gives the game any value.

So goon about how terrible f1 monkeys are etc. It's not their fault that they are playing the game correctly (ie being in a fleet with Logi so as to not die easily) while people like you are playing it wrong (ie taking stupid risks and dying in avoidable pvp gank situations in high sec, the place where magical space police spawn to punish your attacker and save you if you just stay alive long enough).

The Oh So Familiar Sound of Jenn Missing the Point

The Missed Points

1. I don't play in highsec as my killboards (Infinity Ziona, L Dopa) so obviously show.
2. Its not non-consensual if its entirely consensual or entirely avoided.
3. Bonobo's are better than CODE at PvP.

Oh PS: I don't care if you're in the bubbled fecked gate, dock at the first sign of danger group. You're entitled to your "playstyle" just don't try to defend it as playing correctly while telling everyone else they're playing incorrectly.

Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#126 - 2016-11-01 18:41:54 UTC
Tristan Valentina wrote:
While I am in favor of a place where people can play the game they want to. Eve is a game all about risk and the idea that there are different risks in different Sec status. I have always like the idea of a version of higher sec where people can be safe but, make very little money. The big problem I see with this is that it is removing a lot of risk from the industrial side of the game. That risk would need to be replaced.

Risk and reward is supposed to be the driving factor of EVE, that and relationships. While grinding industry safely would be nice that really is a gameplay loop for a different sort of game.

Scanning in highsec is complete crap you should not be able to do it. The risk to the Ganker should be that I am flying a Freighter with nothing in it but Fredos.


Risk is not something that should be imposed simply by mechanics. Gankers impose risk on haulers. If somebody wants to impose risk on gankers...then players should do it, not the game. For example, use an alt to make a courier contract when you are moving lots of individual stacks of items. If I have say 20 stacks of items the chance of none of that dropping is (0.5)^20. That is a very small number--or something is going to drop. However, if I have an alt make a courier contract and then put the plastic wrapped item in my cargo and get ganked the probability nothing drops is now 0.5, and 0.5 >> (0.5)^20. Congratulations you just made that individual riskier. Granted, ganking overall for dedicated gankers will not be any more or less risky as they rely on the law of averages.

Another thing is why in the Hell is nobody pointing out that people post as if the ganked have zero responsibility in this. What do we know:

1. Drop rate is 0.5, that is the probability of any item dropping is 0.5.
2. We know about how long it takes CONCORD to respond to aggression in HS.
3. We know we can calculate the optimal number of gank ships to burn down a freighter.
4. We can attach an ISK value to that gank fleet, call this value X.
5. Based on the ISK value of the gank fleet we can determine the minimal value of cargo to induce a gank. This cargo value is X/0.5 or 2*X.

So...keep your goddamn cargo under 2X and you'll be a less inviting target. It will not make you 100% gank proof. Ganks do happen for the lulz and some gankers might try to ransom you. But, if I am going to gank and I want to make it sustainable, I'll go for freighters carrying at least 2X.

But we will see people with 3X, 4X, 5X, and so forth undocking and flying without a scout, without a webber....You might as well rename your ship the Gankship Lollipop for crying outloud. BTW, there is a term for people who do this: RISK SEEKING.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#127 - 2016-11-01 18:43:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Steffles wrote:

The Oh So Familiar Sound of Jenn Missing the Point

The Missed Points

1. I don't play in highsec as my killboards (Infinity Ziona, L Dopa) so obviously show.
2. Its not non-consensual if its entirely consensual or entirely avoided.
3. Bonobo's are better than CODE at PvP.

Oh PS: I don't care if you're in the bubbled fecked gate, dock at the first sign of danger group. You're entitled to your "playstyle" just don't try to defend it as playing correctly while telling everyone else they're playing incorrectly.


The highlighted part explains everything. I wouldn't have bothered to reply if I knew who it was, though I should have pinged to it after the 2nd lala land post.

What happened, that 3rd massive public rage quit wore off again and you are back to give money to a company you hate (CCP) to play a game you don't like (EVE)? Between bouts of motorcycle riding and online threats that is lol.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#128 - 2016-11-01 18:44:17 UTC
Steffles wrote:

Everyone else including so called "high sec risk averse carebears" such as:

1: The mission runner - the guy who undocks millions of isk worth of ship and mods knowing that he might lose it and that it might set him back days if not weeks depending on his play time.

2. The hauler - the guy who undocks millions, to multiple billions, knowing that he might lose it and that it might set him back days, weeks and possibly months depending on his play time.

3. Everyone else whose not a risk averse dicjockey.




FYI, 1 and 2 are not risk averse, they are risk seeking.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#129 - 2016-11-01 18:53:39 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Steffles wrote:

Everyone else including so called "high sec risk averse carebears" such as:

1: The mission runner - the guy who undocks millions of isk worth of ship and mods knowing that he might lose it and that it might set him back days if not weeks depending on his play time.

2. The hauler - the guy who undocks millions, to multiple billions, knowing that he might lose it and that it might set him back days, weeks and possibly months depending on his play time.

3. Everyone else whose not a risk averse dicjockey.




FYI, 1 and 2 are not risk averse, they are risk seeking.

That was exactly my point - that the people calling 1 and 2 above risk averse carebears while themselves flying disposable "ammo ships" that nobody will attack because (1) its pointless to attack them because they're supposed to blow up and (2) attacking them elicits a concord response - is the height of irony. That gankers are the true risk averse carebears and 1 and 2 above are the true risk takers.

Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#130 - 2016-11-01 18:58:00 UTC
Steffles wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Steffles wrote:

Everyone else including so called "high sec risk averse carebears" such as:

1: The mission runner - the guy who undocks millions of isk worth of ship and mods knowing that he might lose it and that it might set him back days if not weeks depending on his play time.

2. The hauler - the guy who undocks millions, to multiple billions, knowing that he might lose it and that it might set him back days, weeks and possibly months depending on his play time.

3. Everyone else whose not a risk averse dicjockey.




FYI, 1 and 2 are not risk averse, they are risk seeking.

That was exactly my point - that the people calling 1 and 2 above risk averse carebears while themselves flying disposable "ammo ships" that nobody will attack because (1) its pointless to attack them because they're supposed to blow up and (2) attacking them elicits a concord response - is the height of irony. That gankers are the true risk averse carebears and 1 and 2 above are the true risk takers.


Okay....

Risk taking is not a virtue.

Most people are risk averse.

Even in game.

And when the risk takers complain that they are losing to the risk averse....not a problem, working as intended.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#131 - 2016-11-01 19:17:43 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Tristan Valentina wrote:
While I am in favor of a place where people can play the game they want to. Eve is a game all about risk and the idea that there are different risks in different Sec status. I have always like the idea of a version of higher sec where people can be safe but, make very little money. The big problem I see with this is that it is removing a lot of risk from the industrial side of the game. That risk would need to be replaced.

Risk and reward is supposed to be the driving factor of EVE, that and relationships. While grinding industry safely would be nice that really is a gameplay loop for a different sort of game.

Scanning in highsec is complete crap you should not be able to do it. The risk to the Ganker should be that I am flying a Freighter with nothing in it but Fredos.


Risk is not something that should be imposed simply by mechanics. Gankers impose risk on haulers. If somebody wants to impose risk on gankers...then players should do it, not the game. For example, use an alt to make a courier contract when you are moving lots of individual stacks of items. If I have say 20 stacks of items the chance of none of that dropping is (0.5)^20. That is a very small number--or something is going to drop. However, if I have an alt make a courier contract and then put the plastic wrapped item in my cargo and get ganked the probability nothing drops is now 0.5, and 0.5 >> (0.5)^20. Congratulations you just made that individual riskier. Granted, ganking overall for dedicated gankers will not be any more or less risky as they rely on the law of averages.

Another thing is why in the Hell is nobody pointing out that people post as if the ganked have zero responsibility in this. What do we know:

1. Drop rate is 0.5, that is the probability of any item dropping is 0.5.
2. We know about how long it takes CONCORD to respond to aggression in HS.
3. We know we can calculate the optimal number of gank ships to burn down a freighter.
4. We can attach an ISK value to that gank fleet, call this value X.
5. Based on the ISK value of the gank fleet we can determine the minimal value of cargo to induce a gank. This cargo value is X/0.5 or 2*X.

So...keep your goddamn cargo under 2X and you'll be a less inviting target. It will not make you 100% gank proof. Ganks do happen for the lulz and some gankers might try to ransom you. But, if I am going to gank and I want to make it sustainable, I'll go for freighters carrying at least 2X.

But we will see people with 3X, 4X, 5X, and so forth undocking and flying without a scout, without a webber....You might as well rename your ship the Gankship Lollipop for crying outloud. BTW, there is a term for people who do this: RISK SEEKING.

This formula is not really accurate:

Take the Fenrir - there are as many or more 1.3b losses of the Fenrir as there are losses with more than 1.3b in cargo.

The average cost of a thrasher or similiar gank ship per pilot is so low that its more than acceptable to kill an empty Fenrir (for the green killmail) as it is to kill one with loot. The total gank fleet cost is irrelevant given the actual cost is time lost not ship value lost.

In short apart from the high value ganks which are not exactly common, you're losing money ganking freighters when you consider time spent that could be spent generating money in more efficient ways. They're not ganked for isk they're ganked because they're easy to gank and they make for nice killboards. Cargo is a bonus that needs to split 30+ ways.

Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg
Lady Ayeipsia
BlueWaffe
#132 - 2016-11-01 19:26:23 UTC
But that assumes people care that much about killboards which is rarely the case.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#133 - 2016-11-01 19:30:46 UTC
Steffles wrote:

This formula is not really accurate:

Take the Fenrir - there are as many or more 1.3b losses of the Fenrir as there are losses with more than 1.3b in cargo.

The average cost of a thrasher or similiar gank ship per pilot is so low that its more than acceptable to kill an empty Fenrir (for the green killmail) as it is to kill one with loot. The total gank fleet cost is irrelevant given the actual cost is time lost not ship value lost.

In short apart from the high value ganks which are not exactly common, you're losing money ganking freighters when you consider time spent that could be spent generating money in more efficient ways. They're not ganked for isk they're ganked because they're easy to gank and they make for nice killboards. Cargo is a bonus that needs to split 30+ ways.


Try taking out all the NS & LS kills.

The first one is a 3 billion ISK kill in a 0.5.

Then the next 3 are LS kills...i.e. not a ganks, although one has a staggering high value cargo. Then a 4.84 billion loss. The another LS kill, then a 2.88 billion ISK kill in 0.6.

Also, the ones that are low value and in HS, check them for plastic wrapped cargo.....

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Anne Dieu-le-veut
Natl Assn for the Advancement of Criminal People
#134 - 2016-11-01 20:13:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Anne Dieu-le-veut
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Vigirr wrote:
For someone who states he likes the game, your whole posting history is full of "waaah pvp sucks, pvpers are nasty people". Like 99% of your posts.

Don't worry. A couple of weeks ago he claimed to have unsubbed and is just waiting for his accounts to expire.

We can only hope, but more likely just another liar that bitches and moans while still paying CCP for a game that he hates.

Would you care to pull up this post.

Because it wasn't me.

My apology if that's the case. I thought it was you that wrote it.


That would be another whinebear named Padejus you are thinking of (who by the way posted pretty recently also)
Keno Skir
#135 - 2016-11-01 20:15:46 UTC
Ganking is fine, Carebears are food. End.

Black Lanterns Blog <- Read my ramblings -.-

250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <---
Anne Dieu-le-veut
Natl Assn for the Advancement of Criminal People
#136 - 2016-11-01 20:23:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Anne Dieu-le-veut
I have to laugh when I hear people talking about realism in a game set in space in the distant future in what appears to be fluidic space, especially the whole -10s shouldn't be able to dock in high sec, use gates, blah blah, blah. Well, here's a IRL analogy for you:

People released from prison can still go to the mall, ACME, Walmart or wherever. Once a player's criminal timer is up, they have served their time, and are free to return to society. They already have faction police constantly after them, and are free kills for anyone that wants to shoot at them. If anything, real life should be more like this game, not the other way around.

Steffles wrote:

Lets just say somewhere you don't get to hide behind NPC police to get your kills, ie the non-consensual PvP part of the game where CODE is too scared to operate :)


Please explain how -10s are hiding behind NPC police when anyone can shoot them at any time.
Tiberius NoVegas
NovKor Corp.
#137 - 2016-11-01 20:43:15 UTC
Anne Dieu-le-veut wrote:
I have to laugh when I hear people talking about realism in a game set in space in the distant future in what appears to be fluidic space, especially the whole -10s shouldn't be able to dock in high sec, use gates, blah blah, blah. Well, here's a IRL analogy for you:

People released from prison can still go to the mall, ACME, Walmart or wherever. Once a player's criminal timer is up, they have served their time, and are free to return to society. They already have faction police constantly after them, and are free kills for anyone that wants to shoot at them. If anything, real life should be more like this game, not the other way around.

Steffles wrote:

Lets just say somewhere you don't get to hide behind NPC police to get your kills, ie the non-consensual PvP part of the game where CODE is too scared to operate :)


Please explain how -10s are hiding behind NPC police when anyone can shoot them at any time.


I think what people are getting at is the Crime and Punishment concept that if a criminal kills someone irl they serve 25-life. in EVE sense all capsuleers are immortal. crime and punishment are dealt with a little differently. there complaint is that a killer just gets reduced sec status and a short timer as punishment. Lets be honest here, when you get ganked, you wake up in your clone. the only real loss is your implants, ship, modules and thing in your cargo bay. so if you do get ganked the real crime isn't that you died, its that your gear was destroyed/stolen.

So High sec is really more about protecting you from theft/personal property destruction by the lore.
Xavier Higdon
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#138 - 2016-11-02 00:14:06 UTC
Put simply: No. Why? Because your sand castle doesn't get to exist at the expense of mine.

As for those individuals running around calling people names: I get it. Your life sucks. Would you like to talk about it?
Xander Jade
Honor Bound of Folkvangr
#139 - 2016-11-02 02:55:56 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:
Galaxy Duck wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
Vigirr wrote:
Nono, you make a statement so the onus is on you to provide proof. Just listing EVE's expansions is meaningless so again, feel free to point out differences that support your statement.

No the onus is on you when you dispute someones statement to actually discuss it in a reasoned manner.

Strangely why forums are also called discussion boards. You disputed my statement that I signed up under a different set of rules, you figure it out. Hell you might actually learn something.


lol Evidence?!? Who needs evidence when you have a carebear agenda to push.

It's on all of us to prove that the outlandish things Mark says AREN'T true!

Take that, logic!




As I said, you have no ability to actually contribute to any discussion and frankly after a stupid statement like that you have shown you also know little about this game.

You are just embarrassing yourself.



HA HA HA HA ... Galaxy Duck just put a bounty on me.... 315,315 ISK... im guessing its his way of saying that i need to "come to Jesus"
Xander Jade
Honor Bound of Folkvangr
#140 - 2016-11-02 03:15:53 UTC
Tristan Valentina wrote:
While I am in favor of a place where people can play the game they want to. Eve is a game all about risk and the idea that there are different risks in different Sec status. I have always like the idea of a version of higher sec where people can be safe but, make very little money. The big problem I see with this is that it is removing a lot of risk from the industrial side of the game. That risk would need to be replaced.

Risk and reward is supposed to be the driving factor of EVE, that and relationships. While grinding industry safely would be nice that really is a gameplay loop for a different sort of game.

Scanning in highsec is complete crap you should not be able to do it. The risk to the Ganker should be that I am flying a Freighter with nothing in it but Fredos.



this is a good example of someone who understands what im saying, ... no i don't think it is a good idea autopilot anywhere ... but the number of things in this game that are just not used ... autopilot ... insurance... (some use it i guess) .. standings, i like pvp, it is fun... ganking is awesome .. in its own way, im not saying these things need to go away, ... hell make a skill called corrupt connections where you bribe your standings back to the positive, ... have stations that only appear on your hud when you have negative standings, and it sits next to a stable wormhole, ... the ships do need to be rebalanced ... make non-combat cyno that can be lit inside high sec, ... anyway, you could make anything work,