These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 the hate for Hi-Sec players?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Snot Shot
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#81 - 2012-05-31 12:13:56 UTC
Drei Ontalas wrote:
1. In these forums there appears to be this notion that Hi-sec players should move (by force or encouragement) to lower-sec space. Why?

If a player is happy mining scordite in 1.0 space why is that a problem?
If a player like to sit in Jita making trades why is that a problem?
If a player prefers to do hi-sec missions what is the problem?

2. I am genuinely interested in establishing where/how the hostility towards hi-sec comes from. From my admittedly limitedly experience it seems so come down to the EVE equivalent of "Mommy he won't play with me! Make him!"

Am I completely off the mark?

At this point a majority of 0.0 Alliances have blued, NIP'ed, or NAP'ed each other so there is very little to do out there. To keep the Blue lists, NIP's, and NAP's going you need to supply the sheep something large enough to keep them occupied or they will start to fight with each other.

The CFC "Coalition For Cowards" has 30,000 pilots whom are infatuated with The Martini and would do anything he commands them to do, even something like paying $15/month to wage a "Forever War" against high sec miners. As long as he can keep them convinced that it's "the right thing to do" then he doesn’t need to bother loging in or thinking about what to do with them every day...
.

Twitter = @Snot_Shot  - “If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything"

evesnotshot.blogspot.com
Cpt Roghie
Chemical Invasion Co.
#82 - 2012-05-31 12:17:36 UTC
Kougy wrote:
I dont know why people hate us so much, I just want to mine in peace darnit.



No one hates you. It's just darn profitable to murder you.

This could be fun.
Gealbhan
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#83 - 2012-05-31 12:18:14 UTC
Low Sec Vs High Sec in its most basic component is just a class battle thing, nothing more. Arrow
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#84 - 2012-05-31 12:18:40 UTC
OMG, Snot Shot posted outside of COAD?

EVE truly is dying.

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#85 - 2012-05-31 12:27:35 UTC
Snot Shot wrote:

At this point a majority of 0.0 Alliances have blued, NIP'ed, or NAP'ed each other so there is very little to do out there. To keep the Blue lists, NIP's, and NAP's going you need to supply the sheep something large enough to keep them occupied or they will start to fight with each other.


And they will start fighting one another, but in a controlled way and the worry about having something to do is very real. Someone posted a state of the alliance chat here a while ago that addressed that very issue as the primary concern. Most previous powerblocks have essentially died of boredom. The conundrum is that the CFC is untenable except as a whole, but as a whole it's dull as hell. "We won EVE" turns out not to be such an interesting outcome.
Andoria Thara
Fallen Avatars
#86 - 2012-05-31 12:40:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Andoria Thara
Kimmi Chan wrote:

As a response to part 2 of your question look at these forums and count the number of high sec residents screaming bloody murder that they should be 100% safe in high sec, lobbying CCP for a 100% safe high sec, and making ludicrous claims about other players violating the EULA.


I've only seen a handful of threads asking for buffs to barges, or changes to reduce ganking...

The other 42,523,526 threads are people complaining about highsec "carebares" and how they want to ruin eve.

The really stupid suggestions about highsec are usually from trolls trying to keep some sort of "war against carebears" alive.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#87 - 2012-05-31 12:42:33 UTC
Tallian Saotome wrote:
OMG, Snot Shot posted outside of COAD?

EVE truly is dying.



Indeed Cry

brb
Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#88 - 2012-05-31 12:43:04 UTC
Drei Ontalas wrote:

If a player is happy mining scordite in 1.0 space why is that a problem?

If a player is happy training his suicide ganking alt to say hello, in his own way, to a fellow miner - why is that a problem?

It's not, right? Cool

However, even during hulkageddon I've seen dozen miners sitting happily in their exhumers, aligned to some random empty space, not caring for a thrasher targeting them. I'm no pirate nor ganker in hart but this IS the problem and something to be dealt with.
Talon SilverHawk
Patria o Muerte
#89 - 2012-05-31 12:44:21 UTC
Vaju Enki wrote:
Because most of them want to change EvE Online into a Theme Park MMO.


er no

Tal


Drei Ontalas
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#90 - 2012-05-31 12:49:01 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Drei Ontalas wrote:
CCP bills EVE as a game of risk, but what would be the problem with Hi-sec (not the rest of the game) being turned into a themepark?

Because the markets, manufacturing and everything are tied together......

Edit to add: Anything that affected low/null would have to be removed from hi-sec altogether. Why? Because there would be no cost to do anything in hi-sec.


Couldn't the hours of grinding that is associated with a hi-sec play style be the cost?
Talon SilverHawk
Patria o Muerte
#91 - 2012-05-31 12:50:35 UTC
EFF ONEF1 wrote:
The whiners want to play the game their way with no interruption or outside factors unless they specifically go looking for it.

The people who "hate" them do not want them to play that way, they want them to play their way.

oversimplification




Sorry most of the whining I see in the forums are from nul sec and low sec pilots whinging that they don't have enough targets in low sec and nerf hi sec to crap to force pilots into their areas.

Tal

Virgil Travis
Non Constructive Self Management
#92 - 2012-05-31 12:51:18 UTC
Kougy wrote:
I dont know why people hate us so much, I just want to mine in peace darnit.


That's fine, but it may involve a bit of effort to either find a system off the beaten track, away from the trade hubs and routes to avoid attracting much attention or be prepared to set up measures to deter gankers. Just because you wan't to mine in peace doesn't mean that everybody else should be forced to leave you alone. You have to work for it and use a little bit of thought.

Unified Church of the Unobligated - madness in the method Mamma didn't raise no victims.
Talon SilverHawk
Patria o Muerte
#93 - 2012-05-31 12:53:05 UTC
Roime wrote:
Nobody hates hiseccers, but everybody loathes the whiny carebear forum poster who wants to ruin EVE.


As apposed to the whiney null/low/hisec barge gankers that want to do the same Roll
Calydarix Blackmoor
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#94 - 2012-05-31 13:02:35 UTC
Drei Ontalas wrote:
Kehro Urgus wrote:
Vaju Enki wrote:
Because most of them want to change EvE Online into a Theme Park MMO.

That's why the CSM is dominated by null sec alliances.



CCP bills EVE as a game of risk, but what would be the problem with Hi-sec (not the rest of the game) being turned into a themepark?


Because it wouldn't be EVE online anymore ?

The mission where you get your very first ship, the agent even tells you , "This is a LIVE environment, get to your ship quickly" part of the whole fun and mystery is never knowing what is coming next ... the content is driven by player action.

Why would you play in a sandbox, just to want a "theme-park" in a protective bubble inside of said sandbox ?

Why not just save yourself the aggravation and play a theme-park based space game, There are a few that fit that bill out there right now, like STO.

~C
TheBlueMonkey
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2012-05-31 13:08:13 UTC
Drei Ontalas wrote:
1. In these forums there appears to be this notion that Hi-sec players should move (by force or encouragement) to lower-sec space. Why?

If a player is happy mining scordite in 1.0 space why is that a problem?
If a player like to sit in Jita making trades why is that a problem?
If a player prefers to do hi-sec missions what is the problem?

2. I am genuinely interested in establishing where/how the hostility towards hi-sec comes from. From my admittedly limitedly experience it seems so come down to the EVE equivalent of "Mommy he won't play with me! Make him!"

Am I completely off the mark?


From my point of view, all I hear from the "high sec bears" is crys for changes that basically turn eve into a single player pve driven theme park game.


which isn't what eve is


if you loved soccer and I turned up and then started crying for changes that'd make it based under water and involve building a sea lab and then launching an assault on the other team, you'd probably have issues with that.
Hestia Mar
Calmaretto
#96 - 2012-05-31 13:10:04 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
EFF ONEF1 wrote:
The whiners want to play the game their way with no interruption or outside factors unless they specifically go looking for it.

The people who "hate" them do not want them to play that way, they want them to play their way.

oversimplification



Not necessarily "our" way ... but just to realise that "yes, seriously, by clicking 'UNDOCK' you consented to PvP". Along with that, the acceptance that anyone can blap you anywhere at any time for any reason, and it's 100% "fair" within the confines of the game rules (sure, it stings ... and it has the potential to set you back days or weeks ... but someone can do the same thing to them [might even be YOU one day])



Although a carebear, I don't want to see any major changes to gameplay - the way it is, is the way it is.

However this notion about 'undocking means you consent to pvp' is just total bollocks...if , when undocking, a window opens and gives a warning, such as you get when jumping into lo-sec, that you may be attacked at any time, and you need to click 'ok' to undock, then yes I would accept that undock does mean consent. But that's not what happens!

Your analogy means that every time I leave my house, I'm consenting to being murdered on my way to work, and (let me check here...), er, no, I don't consent to that.

I say again, I don't want/expect any changes...I know I can be ganked at any time but I do not consent to it, I just accept it as part of the game.
Pheusia
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#97 - 2012-05-31 13:11:36 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Cpt Roghie wrote:
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:
If a player is happy mining scordite in 1.0 space why is that a problem? It isn't a problem
If a player like to sit in Jita making trades why is that a problem? It isn't a problem
If a player prefers to do hi-sec missions what is the problem? There isn't a problem.

As a response to part 2 of your question look at these forums and count the number of high sec residents screaming bloody murder that they should be 100% safe in high sec, lobbying CCP for a 100% safe high sec, and making ludicrous claims about other players violating the EULA.

If mining and missioning in hi sec aren't problems to these sociopaths, then why the incessant call to arms from the "hardcore PVPer" community to attack and kill them? Why the constant belligerence and belittling against them? Why the constant whining and crying about moving missions and anything remotely fun to them into lo sec?


As for attacking them, Goonswarm earns alot of money doing so. Wouldnt you do the same thing if you were put in that situation?

I can't really say it's for money, as I don't know if profit is being made. But what I can say with certainty is that Goonswarm tends to loath carebears by their own admittance. The Mittani himself has recently gone about a rant on how carebears feel "self-entitled" and how it's his job to rid Eve of this vermin; funny that coming from him.



Goons pay 100M per 10 hulks ganked. 10 hulks contain about 2 billion ISK worth of Technetium, of which the CFC control something like 35 or 40% of the total supply.

Paying 100M in "marketing" spend for 800M in extra sales is on the high end but easily within "real world" parameters of business, especially for products with a very high gross margin.
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#98 - 2012-05-31 13:14:12 UTC
Calydarix Blackmoor wrote:

Why would you play in a sandbox, just to want a "theme-park" in a protective bubble inside of said sandbox ?



That's pretty much what alliances and "napfests" attempt to create: a protective bubble.

The disagreement is about who sets the terms.
Drei Ontalas
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#99 - 2012-05-31 13:14:26 UTC
Calydarix Blackmoor wrote:
Drei Ontalas wrote:
Kehro Urgus wrote:
Vaju Enki wrote:
Because most of them want to change EvE Online into a Theme Park MMO.

That's why the CSM is dominated by null sec alliances.



CCP bills EVE as a game of risk, but what would be the problem with Hi-sec (not the rest of the game) being turned into a themepark?


Because it wouldn't be EVE online anymore ?

The mission where you get your very first ship, the agent even tells you , "This is a LIVE environment, get to your ship quickly" part of the whole fun and mystery is never knowing what is coming next ... the content is driven by player action.

Why would you play in a sandbox, just to want a "theme-park" in a protective bubble inside of said sandbox ?

Why not just save yourself the aggravation and play a theme-park based space game, There are a few that fit that bill out there right now, like STO.

~C


It would still be EVE. The greatness of the game is that it can accomodate a multiplicity of play styles.

In theory a hi-sec bubble of theme park could accommodate those most hated of players from WOW, SWTOR etc. This would bump up CCP's resources. It would also mean more players would be able to find their feet before joining the "real" EVE.
Virgil Travis
Non Constructive Self Management
#100 - 2012-05-31 13:14:31 UTC
Hestia Mar wrote:

However this notion about 'undocking means you consent to pvp' is just total bollocks...if , when undocking, a window opens and gives a warning, such as you get when jumping into lo-sec, that you may be attacked at any time, and you need to click 'ok' to undock, then yes I would accept that undock does mean consent. But that's not what happens!


When you signed up for the game and downloaded the client, that was your warning message. It is not bollocks,

Unified Church of the Unobligated - madness in the method Mamma didn't raise no victims.