These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Spikeflach
Perkone
Caldari State
#161 - 2012-05-31 17:38:11 UTC
Tallian Saotome wrote:

You don't need time, you just need to watch them warp to the belt you are in in a suspicious manner, and immediately warp out.

You are smart enough to have your own 1 week old alt with a ship full of webs to slingshot you, right?


Because playing eve correctly involves having more than one account?
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#162 - 2012-05-31 17:40:06 UTC
Spikeflach wrote:
Haulie Berry wrote:
Now, in addition to the obvious issue of requesting immunity from interference in a game world with which you are interfering, there is another issue that I think frequently gets people's hackles up:

The bad attitude.

It goes like this:

A miner, having been ganked, heads to the forums to post a complaint. A number of people then provide loads of useful suggestions to help the miner avoid that in the future.

The miner's response, almost invariably, is that he shouldn't have to do any of those things. He should just BE safe, because he wants to be, with no effort on his behalf.

If you suggest they fit a tank, they will complain that this reduces yield (as if they are the only ones in the game who have to accept tradeoffs in fitting a ship).

If you suggest they mine grav or mission sites, that takes too long and is too much work.

If you suggest they use a covetor or a battleship, again, that reduces yield and they shouldn't have to compromise no yield at all.

If you suggest that they simply pay attention to local and use Dscan, they are important people with important RL responsibilities that need to be attended to while mining, and so they can't possibly be expected to actually play the game while mining - preposterous, that!

So, in addition to the economic factor, there's also this attitude that the game should take responsibility for their safety, instead of doing it themselves, and this is a perspective that is somewhat antithetical to the nature of Eve. It's a perspective that is impossible to respect.


Stop with the immunity from interference thing, the people arguing against the ideas are making that up.

The problem is not that the tank reduces yield, the problem is that it is still easily gankable even with the max tank.

mining mission sites is kind of worthless most the time, grav sites are few and far between.

Why use a ship not designed for your purpose. Mining ships were created ot do just that.

People do play at the keyboard while mining. Problem is knowing the 5 npc alts in your system that were created a week earlier as being suicide gankers. How you get that kind of intel in that amount of time boggles me.

Hi-sec is for learning eve, but the 0.0 entities force people who want to play the game as they choose to stay in hi sec. So what can they do but take advantage of hi sec to the fullest potential they can. Or maybe the players are willing to change eve so people actually "graduate" from hi sec?

The funny part is, you're exactly the person she's talking about.

Here you are making yet another post that simply amounts to "I SHULDNT HAZ TO DO DAT!!!!"

Hi-sec is not for learning EVE you douchebag, it's for people to play in relative safety so that the game doesn't degrade into a free for all deathmatch.
Dragon Outlaw
Rogue Fleet
#163 - 2012-05-31 17:41:24 UTC
lavinia corelia wrote:
my two cents: instead of banning hulks from high sec (as requested by ... goonwaffe Shocked), just make low sec ore REALLY much more profitabile than low sec ore and you will have BOTH a good number of gank targets for OMFGPWNZRZ carebears killers AND the possibility to adopt that "total safety" in high sec mining.


Do you mean low sec ore more profitable then null sec?
Virgil Travis
Non Constructive Self Management
#164 - 2012-05-31 17:42:27 UTC
Spikeflach wrote:
Tallian Saotome wrote:

You don't need time, you just need to watch them warp to the belt you are in in a suspicious manner, and immediately warp out.

You are smart enough to have your own 1 week old alt with a ship full of webs to slingshot you, right?


Because playing eve correctly involves having more than one account?


Or get some friends to help.

Unified Church of the Unobligated - madness in the method Mamma didn't raise no victims.
Spikeflach
Perkone
Caldari State
#165 - 2012-05-31 17:43:27 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

The funny part is, you're exactly the person she's talking about.

Here you are making yet another post that simply amounts to "I SHULDNT HAZ TO DO DAT!!!!"

Hi-sec is not for learning EVE you douchebag, it's for people to play in relative safety so that the game doesn't degrade into a free for all deathmatch.



I think i made good arguments against each point. Prove to me that my arguments against can't possibly be true.
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#166 - 2012-05-31 17:44:55 UTC
Spikeflach wrote:
Tallian Saotome wrote:

You don't need time, you just need to watch them warp to the belt you are in in a suspicious manner, and immediately warp out.

You are smart enough to have your own 1 week old alt with a ship full of webs to slingshot you, right?


Because playing eve correctly involves having more than one account?

Actually, playing EVE correctly means having friends.

Those incapable of making friends can fake it with an alt.

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
Haulie Berry
#167 - 2012-05-31 17:45:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Haulie Berry
Way to serve as a shining example.

Spikeflach wrote:


Stop with the immunity from interference thing, the people arguing against the ideas are making that up.


Oh, sure. I'll just buy into the conspiracy theory, why not?

Quote:
The problem is not that the tank reduces yield, the problem is that it is still easily gankable even with the max tank.


Ah, yes. I forgot that one. One of my favorites.

So, I have two locks on my front door. A standard lock built into the knob, and a deadbolt.

I refer to these as "one kick" and "two kicks". When I set my door to "two kicks", I do not expect that my home is now 100% safe from intruders (as the name suggests). It is not there to provide 100% immunity to a break in. On a long enough timeline, my home WILL be broken into. It's simply there to discourage all but the most dedicated of burglars, thereby decreasing the frequency of breakins. So, I use the deadbolt despite the fact that it is less-than-100% effective.

Similarly, putting a tank on a hulk is not intended to - nor should it - provide 100% gank immunity. It is intended to discourage the less dedicated gankers, thereby decreasing the frequency of ganks. Put a tank on a Hulk and you just eliminated EVERY solo catalyst from the pool of potential gankers.

Quote:
mining mission sites is kind of worthless most the time, grav sites are few and far between.


Yeah? Because miners over in S&I are reporting great success with this. You, of course, can't be arsed, though - no, the game must be changed to suit you.

Quote:
Why use a ship not designed for your purpose. Mining ships were created ot do just that.


A covetor is a mining ship. That aside, there's that Bad Attitude I was talking about: "Why should I have to do THAT?" Why shouldn't you have to do that? Why shouldn't you have to do the same things that EVERY other player has to do and adapt with the environment? There are MANY situations in which a ship that wasn't designed specifically for a task functions better for that task than a purpose-built ship because of other factors. This is not a "problem" that only miners have to deal with.

Quote:
People do play at the keyboard while mining. Problem is knowing the 5 npc alts in your system that were created a week earlier as being suicide gankers. How you get that kind of intel in that amount of time boggles me.


Confirming that miners are the only group in the game who have to deal with fuzzy intelligence. Roll Pay attention, use D-scan at a moderate range. See a potential threat incoming? Warp out.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#168 - 2012-05-31 17:47:36 UTC
Bunnie Hop wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
lavinia corelia wrote:
my two cents: instead of banning hulks from high sec, just make low sec ore REALLY much more profitabile than low sec ore and you will have BOTH a good number of gank targets for OMFGPWNZRZ carebears killers AND the possibility to adopt that "total safety" in high sec mining.


Wouldn't matter.
There is nothing CCP can do to drive people to low sec to mine. No amount of "making it more profitable" will help.


Well, maybe if the drastically reduced the size of belts in hi-sec so that people would have to go to low sec in order to mine at all.


I think if they reduced the belts it would drive people away, not into low sec. Those who wish to be in low sec are there already. Your first line of thought is right on though, nothing CCP can do will drive high seccers into low sec.


Yeah, the second part was really just a kind of afterthough.

People who don't want to go to low sec don't go because they don't want to increase their chances of encountering conflict with another player, otherwise known as pvp.

Unfortunetly, to many of these people also think that hi sec means they don't have to do any pvp.


Personally, I think that CCP needs to create a sticky thread at the top of GD that straight out says that ganking in hi sec is a part of the game that will always be there, and that they won't remove it due to the overal structure of EVE being a game were you're expected to get your ship blown up.

Then everytime someone comes to the forums to cry about pvp happening, people would need only to point them in the direction of that sticky.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#169 - 2012-05-31 17:50:50 UTC
Spikeflach wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

The funny part is, you're exactly the person she's talking about.

Here you are making yet another post that simply amounts to "I SHULDNT HAZ TO DO DAT!!!!"

Hi-sec is not for learning EVE you douchebag, it's for people to play in relative safety so that the game doesn't degrade into a free for all deathmatch.



I think i made good arguments against each point. Prove to me that my arguments against can't possibly be true.


No you didn't.

The only thing you did was affirm everything that the person you quoted said.

She said, every time someone complains, people give suggestions. The people complaining just turn around and say I shouldn't have to do those things.

You exact responce was, I shouldn't have to do those things.


Contrary to what you might think, sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I CANT HEARZ YOOOOUUUUZZZZ!!" is not an intelligent way to have a discussion.
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#170 - 2012-05-31 17:51:51 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Bunnie Hop wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
lavinia corelia wrote:
my two cents: instead of banning hulks from high sec, just make low sec ore REALLY much more profitabile than low sec ore and you will have BOTH a good number of gank targets for OMFGPWNZRZ carebears killers AND the possibility to adopt that "total safety" in high sec mining.


Wouldn't matter.
There is nothing CCP can do to drive people to low sec to mine. No amount of "making it more profitable" will help.


Well, maybe if the drastically reduced the size of belts in hi-sec so that people would have to go to low sec in order to mine at all.


I think if they reduced the belts it would drive people away, not into low sec. Those who wish to be in low sec are there already. Your first line of thought is right on though, nothing CCP can do will drive high seccers into low sec.


Yeah, the second part was really just a kind of afterthough.

People who don't want to go to low sec don't go because they don't want to increase their chances of encountering conflict with another player, otherwise known as pvp.

Unfortunetly, to many of these people also think that hi sec means they don't have to do any pvp.


Personally, I think that CCP needs to create a sticky thread at the top of GD that straight out says that ganking in hi sec is a part of the game that will always be there, and that they won't remove it due to the overal structure of EVE being a game were you're expected to get your ship blown up.

Then everytime someone comes to the forums to cry about pvp happening, people would need only to point them in the direction of that sticky.

I'm kinda liking the idea of a message you have to click on OK to in order to undock that says you might get ganked out in that scary space place.

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#171 - 2012-05-31 17:52:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Natsett Amuinn
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Spikeflach wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

The funny part is, you're exactly the person she's talking about.

Here you are making yet another post that simply amounts to "I SHULDNT HAZ TO DO DAT!!!!"

Hi-sec is not for learning EVE you douchebag, it's for people to play in relative safety so that the game doesn't degrade into a free for all deathmatch.



I think i made good arguments against each point. Prove to me that my arguments against can't possibly be true.


No you didn't.

The only thing you did was affirm everything that the person you quoted said.

She said, every time someone complains, people give suggestions. The people complaining just turn around and say I shouldn't have to do those things.

Your exact responce was, I shouldn't have to do those things. (Obviously through a halff assed attempt at trying to debunk the idea that those suggestions even work, even though people actually do do those things to great success, but those people are obviously smarter then you. That's not really your fault I guess.)


Contrary to what you might think, sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I CANT HEARZ YOOOOUUUUZZZZ!!" is not an intelligent way to have a discussion.


I have no ******* clue why I quoted myself when I wanted to edit the post I made.

Guess I'm no smarter then the guy I was responding to.
I fail.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#172 - 2012-05-31 17:55:36 UTC
Tallian Saotome wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Bunnie Hop wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
lavinia corelia wrote:
my two cents: instead of banning hulks from high sec, just make low sec ore REALLY much more profitabile than low sec ore and you will have BOTH a good number of gank targets for OMFGPWNZRZ carebears killers AND the possibility to adopt that "total safety" in high sec mining.


Wouldn't matter.
There is nothing CCP can do to drive people to low sec to mine. No amount of "making it more profitable" will help.


Well, maybe if the drastically reduced the size of belts in hi-sec so that people would have to go to low sec in order to mine at all.


I think if they reduced the belts it would drive people away, not into low sec. Those who wish to be in low sec are there already. Your first line of thought is right on though, nothing CCP can do will drive high seccers into low sec.


Yeah, the second part was really just a kind of afterthough.

People who don't want to go to low sec don't go because they don't want to increase their chances of encountering conflict with another player, otherwise known as pvp.

Unfortunetly, to many of these people also think that hi sec means they don't have to do any pvp.


Personally, I think that CCP needs to create a sticky thread at the top of GD that straight out says that ganking in hi sec is a part of the game that will always be there, and that they won't remove it due to the overal structure of EVE being a game were you're expected to get your ship blown up.

Then everytime someone comes to the forums to cry about pvp happening, people would need only to point them in the direction of that sticky.

I'm kinda liking the idea of a message you have to click on OK to in order to undock that says you might get ganked out in that scary space place.

They would ignore it and still come to the forums and ***** that it sholdn't happen.
Onyx Nyx
The Veldspar Protectorate
#173 - 2012-05-31 17:58:56 UTC
I don't hate hisec carebears. I just want to wash my face and bathe in their blood now and then.

I kill kittens, and puppies and bunnies. I maim toddlers and teens and then more.

  • Richard (http://www.lfgcomic.com/)
Andoria Thara
Fallen Avatars
#174 - 2012-05-31 18:01:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Andoria Thara
Tippia wrote:
Doesn't matter. You've still created an unassailable base of industrial production that affects the entire universe around it, but which is protected from any kind of influence in the other direction. This fundamentally breaks the very core of the game: the industry and the economy that drives it.

You're asking for godmode. If you don't understand why that is bad in a multiplayer game, there is no helping you.


So let me get this straight, highsec miners who do nothing but mine all day and make on average 20 million an hour by selling their minerals/ore to other players, are worse than players who run missions all day, bringing brand new isk into the game (which affects the economy much, much more) through bounties and mission rewards?

IMO, people who mission run all day should be the real targets... but that would mean ganking something other than a defenseless ship wouldn't it? Roll

eve ganking = the path of least resistance
Haulie Berry
#175 - 2012-05-31 18:03:49 UTC
Alternatively, the old adage with the two campers and the bear applies. You don't have to outrun the bear - you just have to outrun the other camper.

I don't really "do" Hulkageddon. I have occasionally ganked a hulk in high sec here and there, mostly for funsies. I am largely a solo player, though, so what I typically do is scout potential targets with a passive targeter and a ship scanner, then go after only the hulks I'm sure I can break alone.

The dude with the tank fit? He gets left alone, because one system over there's a guy sitting in a belt with a full rack of mining laser upgrades and not a mid-slot module in sight.

So at least in the case of the solo-ganker, you don't really have to tank the ganker - you just have to outtank the other Hulks. :D
terrly bronks
Doomheim
#176 - 2012-05-31 18:04:55 UTC
TigerXtrm wrote:
Because the PVPers somehow think they have the right to tell other people how to play a sandbox game. Notice that it's only PVPers bitching and that the carebears actually very rarely complain about anything (unless they got ganked in hi-sec).

More so I think the majority of these 'PVPers' that complain found out that they are worthless in any major battle and just want some easy targets in low-sec so they can at least kill something. But one does not simply kill a miner alone in hi-sec so they whine and ***** here :D.

As for the Goons trying to mess with hi-sec, it's just in their interest to kill as many Hulks as possible because they earn massive amounts of money for each one that gets replaced. It's business, nothing more.





110 % this for sure

pvp'ers need to stay in 0.0 I think the problem is is it is to easy now to hold space almost takes an act of god to to take sov away CCP needs to go back to the old way :) kill the pos's get sov :) put up more pos's get sov lol they took it to far and now its just high sec space without gank sec loss lol
Haulie Berry
#177 - 2012-05-31 18:05:37 UTC
Andoria Thara wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Doesn't matter. You've still created an unassailable base of industrial production that affects the entire universe around it, but which is protected from any kind of influence in the other direction. This fundamentally breaks the very core of the game: the industry and the economy that drives it.

You're asking for godmode. If you don't understand why that is bad in a multiplayer game, there is no helping you.


So let me get this straight, highsec miners who do nothing but mine all day and make on average 20 million an hour by selling their minerals/ore to other players, are worse than players who run missions all day, bringing brand new isk into the game (which affects the economy much, much more) through bounties and mission rewards?

IMO, people who mission run all day should be the real targets... but that would mean ganking something other than a defenseless ship wouldn't it? Roll

eve ganking = the path of least resistance



Mission runners don't get ganked? Tell that to Solarius.
Bunnie Hop
Bunny Knights
#178 - 2012-05-31 18:12:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Bunnie Hop
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Bunnie Hop wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
lavinia corelia wrote:
my two cents: instead of banning hulks from high sec, just make low sec ore REALLY much more profitabile than low sec ore and you will have BOTH a good number of gank targets for OMFGPWNZRZ carebears killers AND the possibility to adopt that "total safety" in high sec mining.


Wouldn't matter.
There is nothing CCP can do to drive people to low sec to mine. No amount of "making it more profitable" will help.


Well, maybe if the drastically reduced the size of belts in hi-sec so that people would have to go to low sec in order to mine at all.


I think if they reduced the belts it would drive people away, not into low sec. Those who wish to be in low sec are there already. Your first line of thought is right on though, nothing CCP can do will drive high seccers into low sec.


Yeah, the second part was really just a kind of afterthough.

People who don't want to go to low sec don't go because they don't want to increase their chances of encountering conflict with another player, otherwise known as pvp.

Unfortunetly, to many of these people also think that hi sec means they don't have to do any pvp.


Personally, I think that CCP needs to create a sticky thread at the top of GD that straight out says that ganking in hi sec is a part of the game that will always be there, and that they won't remove it due to the overal structure of EVE being a game were you're expected to get your ship blown up.

Then everytime someone comes to the forums to cry about pvp happening, people would need only to point them in the direction of that sticky.


If they just made the hulks a bit more durable so it took tornadoes or the like to gank them instead of toy destroyers I think it would end most of the anti gank threads. You are right, nowhere is safe nor should it be, but I believe it takes too little effort to gank. Personally I fly the Rattlesnake and the Nighthawk most of the time when missioning, or the scythe or basilisk for support, ships not so easily ganked just because I know ganking can happen at any moment.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#179 - 2012-05-31 18:12:40 UTC
terrly bronks wrote:
TigerXtrm wrote:
Because the PVPers somehow think they have the right to tell other people how to play a sandbox game. Notice that it's only PVPers bitching and that the carebears actually very rarely complain about anything (unless they got ganked in hi-sec).

More so I think the majority of these 'PVPers' that complain found out that they are worthless in any major battle and just want some easy targets in low-sec so they can at least kill something. But one does not simply kill a miner alone in hi-sec so they whine and ***** here :D.

As for the Goons trying to mess with hi-sec, it's just in their interest to kill as many Hulks as possible because they earn massive amounts of money for each one that gets replaced. It's business, nothing more.





110 % this for sure

pvp'ers need to stay in 0.0 I think the problem is is it is to easy now to hold space almost takes an act of god to to take sov away CCP needs to go back to the old way :) kill the pos's get sov :) put up more pos's get sov lol they took it to far and now its just high sec space without gank sec loss lol


And yet people insist that no one wants to make hi sec 100% safe?

Looks like that's exactly what this individual is asking for.

The simplest solution? If you don't like it, don't play.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#180 - 2012-05-31 18:14:19 UTC
Bunnie Hop wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Bunnie Hop wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
lavinia corelia wrote:
my two cents: instead of banning hulks from high sec, just make low sec ore REALLY much more profitabile than low sec ore and you will have BOTH a good number of gank targets for OMFGPWNZRZ carebears killers AND the possibility to adopt that "total safety" in high sec mining.


Wouldn't matter.
There is nothing CCP can do to drive people to low sec to mine. No amount of "making it more profitable" will help.


Well, maybe if the drastically reduced the size of belts in hi-sec so that people would have to go to low sec in order to mine at all.


I think if they reduced the belts it would drive people away, not into low sec. Those who wish to be in low sec are there already. Your first line of thought is right on though, nothing CCP can do will drive high seccers into low sec.


Yeah, the second part was really just a kind of afterthough.

People who don't want to go to low sec don't go because they don't want to increase their chances of encountering conflict with another player, otherwise known as pvp.

Unfortunetly, to many of these people also think that hi sec means they don't have to do any pvp.


Personally, I think that CCP needs to create a sticky thread at the top of GD that straight out says that ganking in hi sec is a part of the game that will always be there, and that they won't remove it due to the overal structure of EVE being a game were you're expected to get your ship blown up.

Then everytime someone comes to the forums to cry about pvp happening, people would need only to point them in the direction of that sticky.


If they just made the hulks a bit more durable so it took tornadoes or the like to gank them instead of toy destroyers I think it would end most of the anti gank threads. You are right, nowhere is safe nor should it be, but I believe it takes too little effort to gank. Personally I fly the Rattlesnake and the Nighthawk most of the time when missioning, or the scythe or basilisk for support, ships not so easily ganked just because I know ganking can happing at any moment.


Is it profitable to suicide gank a hulk?

Goon payout aside. If I suicide ganked a hulk, would it make me profit after I replace the ship and all it's fittings I had to lose in order to do so?