EVE General Discussion

I would like to ask two questions to anyone who considers him/herself a "highsec carebear".

No hate, no judgement. In fact, I do not believe in "EVE classes"; I believe everyone is allowed to log-in and play the game the way they wish. I can "bear it up" Monday because I feel like it and then "gank it down" Tuesday because circumstances allow it. No one chooses their "class" when they start playing, all we do is choose an activity when we log in. Some activities are simply safer than others. (Key word here: safer)

Regardless, some of us choose exclusively activities with the least amount of risk - and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. This is usually what the carebear label designates: one who engages in low-risk activities.

So my questions are the following:

1. What exactly is a reasonable amount of risk? In other words, at which point would losing your most expensive ship (NPCs or Players, no matter) result in you going "Yep, I truly deserved to lose that ship and I can only blame myself". Showing emotion - sadness or rage - for such a lose is understandable; such is the nature of the game. So please, an honest response.

2. What exactly is a reasonable amount of profit you should be allowed to make? What is the maximum and the minimum isk/hour that should be available when you perform said activities under you ideal risk/reward ratio you thought of when answering question 1.

And before posting your answers, please remember that EVE remains a single-sharded universe and that even the 14-day trial noob can sell his free 1 unit of trit to the biggest 0.0 overlord and complete his buy order. In other words, the more isk you make, the more its overall value decreases for everyone. To increase value of an item, it needs to be harder to obtain. Also, feel free to answer using actual items for comparison such as specific ship class, modules or even PLEX.

--- EDIT 1 --- (after 5 pages) (POST #91) ---

So anyways... 5 pages I there is barely anyone who actually responded to the questions. Is it because the real highsec dwellers simply adapted and are playing the game or because they do not exist?

I honestly expected something along the lines:

1. Losing a ship should happen under two circumstances: when I make a mistake (vs NPC or player) or when someone invest more effort into ganking me than I invested protecting myself (vs player).

2. I should make enough money in highsec to barely pay for a PLEX on a good month. It makes no sense to me if I could make more, because the price would just shift accordingly since 80% of EVE's player-base (and henceforth the biggest chunk of PLEX customers) is in highsec. This also keeps the higher profit areas of the game relevant. Think about it, if we all could make 1 bil profit a month in highsec with "casual" playing, how long would it take before the minimum price for a PLEX peaks just a little over one bil?

These are actually my personal answers to those questions.

--- EDIT 2 --- (after 24 pages) (POST #480) ---

I believe the hulk vs suicide ganker topic has been hammered out. Let's keep it to the OP topic please. What I am essentially asking highsec dwellers is :

What, in your opinion, is a proper counter to your "safer PVE" if not suicide ganking or wardeccing.

It easy to call something overpowered or not fair, but what is your idea of fair then? There are many activities in EVE and "getting your killmails" is not the only way to counter something.

I think 100% safety in highsec is not fair while you can still keep supplying isk and items into the economy. It would make highsec income grossly overpowered in regards to other sec regions.

This is a new and exciting thread that will deliver new and exciting discussion.

Your argument is flawed on the get-go by the ASSUMPTION that is has to with risk/reward.

Can it not enter your tiny brains that it is just what the particular person LIKES DOING ?

Stop this idiotic argument and close this ump-teen hundreth Thread about this stupid supposition.

Yet another flaw. I did not ASK or even TRY for or even KNOW ABOUT that Cruor BPC drop I received in a 3/10 DED site.

When an activity generates profit inside such a sandbox environment it does not matter if that's your main motivator. Any profit you make, whether you like it or not, will affect the economy in-game.

But let me get this straight - for all you care, if your activities provided you with absolutely no profit, you would still like doing it? You are fine with highsec being 100% safe but with absolutely 0 rewards? Please explain how this would affect new players.

Whether you like it or not, I am still only asking about the minimal/maximal amount of profit you would find acceptable.

You state how the game is now. What I am interested is how a true carebear wants the game to be AND explain why he/she thinks it would be better.

...and then you make no sense. Period.

Drunkpoasting is always a really bad idea.

I don't mind loosing anything. I'm not thinking in ways of more or less risk.

I would be happy with not making any profit at all. Most of the time, I'm on a negative income anyway (investments...).

I just want to play the way I want to play. If that way incorporates high risk, I'll do it. And I don't mind if I get any profit out of my game.

You singularly win the worst poaster of the year for your circuolar nonsense. Get out.

First, you can Tank a Hulk such that it takes more isk than the Hulk is worth to gank with a reasonable number of characters. (You can also fly a Hulk such that you are immune to ganks)

Second, then you shouldn't have pushed for the Insurance nerf. Before that, people were using larger (more expensive) hulls with cheaper weapons. The insurance nerf made that expensive.

And finally, you can trivially tank a Hulk such that no single ship (available in the normal course of HS) can gank it. (A T2 Catalyst [15m+] can only solo gank an entirely untanked Hulk)

Like it or not, you make decisions with regards to your survival every time you undock. If you don't fit your ship so that it can deal with the potential threats, that's on you.