These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

HiSec security is CCP's responsibility.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Peta Michalek
Doomheim
#21 - 2012-06-01 06:46:09 UTC
Shogun Archer wrote:
Likes received = 0

That is all.

Edit: Oh holy hell. Leave it to someone to screw up my observation.


I think this being EVE GenDis, someone would like me just to spite you anyway.
Stan Smith
State War Academy
Caldari State
#22 - 2012-06-01 07:42:56 UTC
Quote:

So please tell me once again why should we give away our power, like it has already happened in RL ?

By accepting the responsibility on our own security, we are effectively taking back our power and by that we become masters of our own destiny.


yeah! how dare ccp be responsible for controlling their product! you dont see apple or microsoft support their products after launch!

☻/ /▌ / \ This is Bob, post him into your forum sig and help him conquer the forums.
Shian Yang
#23 - 2012-06-01 07:55:08 UTC
MetaMorpheus Jones wrote:
How many started two or five yrs ago and are still playing? It is in building up a customer base that companies grow, not just cycling new customers through those slots abandoned by ex-customers.


Greetings capsuleer,

You will be pleased to know then that CCP's analysis of their account subscription patterns shows that once someone has been a pilot in New Eden for 3 years they are unlikely to leave.

Quote:
The meeting ended with some fun data about subscribers – apparently if a user has been subscribed to EVE for three years or more, that user is very unlikely to leave EVE.


Refer back to the CSM minutes.

As such, and with so many other discussions like these that are not based in fact, but in baseless supposition, I feel comfortable in rejecting your entire premise as you'd not even done a basic fact check before you rambled.

Peta wrote:
It's not going to die, it's going to slowly continue on its way wobbling, like it did for the last half a decade. For some this stagnation is good, but I think the game could be made much better if only CCP had shown some initiative.


Go club a seal or something. New Eden is not stagnant. But it is not a commercial, mass marketed product like Quafe or some other cheap, generic, bland thing. Only the elite are cut out to be capsuleers and this is reflected in the slow, but steady rise in the number of capsuleers venturing forth into New Eden.

Regards,

Shian Yang
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#24 - 2012-06-01 07:58:03 UTC
Hisec is safer, not safe. EVE is fundamentally a PvP game, with hisec set aside as a place where it is intended to be harder to inflict PvP damage on other players, not impossible.

Safety in all aspects of this virtual world is the player's responsibility. EVE is always “hardcore” mode without having to reach level 10 first Lol — this is a fundamental piece of education which all new players need to receive.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
ModeratedToSilence
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#25 - 2012-06-01 07:58:30 UTC
If it is true that you have been playing for a month then I suggest you wait 5-6 years and explore all the different facets Eve Online can offer before telling us whose job it is to control the status of space.
c4 t
Cosmic Psychedelics
#26 - 2012-06-01 10:02:07 UTC
I only read some of this but it was just a ramble. Dumb a **** probability: 84.5%
gfldex
#27 - 2012-06-01 10:22:48 UTC
MetaMorpheus Jones wrote:
Empire Space, where new players must start, is Hisec, and ruled by one of the npc sovereignties. Hisec is, at worst, a necessary evil to the game. There must be a place where new players can get their feet wet, train a little bit, run missions, mine, whatever - without prematurely exposing them to dangers they still know nothing about, or have no skills or tools to defend against.


New players can't fly Hulks. Your entire chain of argument would fall apart beyond this point if your chain of arguments would be any.

You make a hell of a lot of definitions. Can you provide any citations for any of your claims? Somehow I doubt that.

It is no wonder that you get pretty much everything wrong, given you had never access to the beta forum.

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.
Lexmana
#28 - 2012-06-01 10:25:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Lexmana
OP should probably read The Presumption of Safety before confirming every thing stated in that article to be true. Now I need to try out a new tinfoil-hat too.
Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#29 - 2012-06-01 10:28:02 UTC
I stopped reading after "CCP created the game with 3 areas:" ....... duh.... What?

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.
Virgil Travis
Non Constructive Self Management
#30 - 2012-06-01 10:28:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Virgil Travis
I prefer being responsible for my own safety, even in high sec. This is not the place if you can't take responsibility for yourself, no cotton wool to wrap you in or hand to hold as you cross the road and that is what draws many who play the game.

CCP provide the sandbox and make it work, that is their responsibility as they see it and I and others are happy to take the rest of the responsibility upon ourselves. Not everybody who lives in high sec wishes to be bubble wrapped and cared for.

Unified Church of the Unobligated - madness in the method Mamma didn't raise no victims.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#31 - 2012-06-01 10:47:28 UTC
MetaMorpheus Jones wrote:
Yea, alright, forget the real CCP police, bad idea. It is still fundamentally CCPs space to secure.
No, it really isn't. Your security is always your responsibility. How you choose to approach this is up to you.

Highsec is simply a place where aggression comes at a cost, and you can choose to base your security on the gamble that people will generally be to cheap to pay that price and thus refrain from attacking you for no good reason. This is a dangerous gamble because “no good reason” is such a subjective metric.

All it does is give you one more option to build your security around, but it is still you who have to build it (unsurprisingly, since we're talking multiplayer sandbox). The NPCs are not there to “keep the peace” — they're there to enforce the costs of aggression, nothing more. The game mechanics still dictate that you are responsible for your own safety and security and you are given a plethora of tools to create the level of security you're comfortable with.
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#32 - 2012-06-01 11:01:47 UTC
Eternal Error wrote:
tl;dr

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#33 - 2012-06-01 11:11:28 UTC
Why do people like the OP continue to assume that high-sec is somehow broken and that they have the "perfect solution" to fix it? There is nothing wrong with high-sec except for the increasingly large numbers of idiots who want it to be "100% safe". It's no wonder so many people have taken a severe disliking to miners and other high sec dwellers, half the ones that come here are nothing but little whiny bastards.


Oh, and for the sake of transparency and honesty, I'm a high-sec mission runner, have been for years, and despite having been nuked countless times I still have exactly ZERO problems with the way high-sec security is maintained.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
gfldex
#34 - 2012-06-01 11:18:12 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
There is nothing wrong with high-sec except for the increasingly large numbers of idiots who want it to be "100% safe".


I would not call them idiots. It's just that bots don't play well with ganks.

Out of the twelve exhumers I ganked during Hulkageddon, 5 played the let's-relog-a-few-dozen-times-to-get-the-mining-laz0rs-unstuck-card. They didn't came online for two weeks.

Hulkageddon got more chars banned then anything before by triggering bad bot behaviour. The only counter those poor souls see is to rush to the forum to get highsec changed into a more bot-friendly environment.

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.
brinelan
#35 - 2012-06-01 11:19:21 UTC
You know, if you want to play in systems that you have all to yourself you could always leave crowded caldari space.. there is a lot of systems after all.
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#36 - 2012-06-01 11:20:38 UTC
MetaMorpheus Jones wrote:
Yea, alright, forget the real CCP police, bad idea. It is still fundamentally CCPs space to secure.

No, its *YOUR* space to secure. CCP made it for you to live in.

If you fail to secure the doors to your home, do the cops show up and do it for you? Actually, when you get robbed, they laugh at you. Investigate, but still laugh at you for being so dumb.

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#37 - 2012-06-01 11:37:31 UTC
gfldex wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
There is nothing wrong with high-sec except for the increasingly large numbers of idiots who want it to be "100% safe".


I would not call them idiots. It's just that bots don't play well with ganks.

Out of the twelve exhumers I ganked during Hulkageddon, 5 played the let's-relog-a-few-dozen-times-to-get-the-mining-laz0rs-unstuck-card. They didn't came online for two weeks.

Hulkageddon got more chars banned then anything before by triggering bad bot behaviour. The only counter those poor souls see is to rush to the forum to get highsec changed into a more bot-friendly environment.



So Hulkageddon did have some positive points above and beyond it just being fun game play, that's good to hear. And I should have been clearer about the idiots comment, it's only the one's screaming in here I am calling idiots. If memory serves, CCP once stated that less than 10% of subscribers ever actually venture to the forums, and taking in to account the sheer number of high sec dwellers, I estimate that less than 1% of those high sec people actually come here.

Which makes me hate bears a little less, knowing that more of them are like me, and less like the self indulgent whiners we keep seeing on here.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Danks
Fat Angry Toe Tappin Inbreds
#38 - 2012-06-01 11:44:14 UTC
I'm just waiting for people to start crying for CCP to disable targeting another player in Hi-sec. I figure we're not too far off from that....
Lexmana
#39 - 2012-06-01 11:56:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Lexmana
Danks wrote:
I'm just waiting for people to start crying for CCP to disable targeting another player in Hi-sec. I figure we're not too far off from that....

You don't have to wait for it. They are already crying for CCP to remove fighting from 1.0 and .9 space.
Virgil Travis
Non Constructive Self Management
#40 - 2012-06-01 11:59:28 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Which makes me hate bears a little less, knowing that more of them are like me, and less like the self indulgent whiners we keep seeing on here.


I would certainly hope so, I'm primarily high sec for now, though spending more time in low and null and encouraging new members of the corp to dip their toes in the water. Some have already and have had fun when they realised that low sec isn't the death trap some might make it out to be.

With a little common sense, knowledge, situational awareness and willingness to adapt, any dangers you may encounter in high sec are easy to deal with. I think it's just the fact that some don't see the need to use any of the aforementioned qualities to help themselves.

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