These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Specific Examples of Where Risk Should Be Inserted Successfully Into High-sec

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#101 - 2012-10-09 07:31:46 UTC
Kitty Bear wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Hear that guys? Sandbox means that I should be able to mine and mission run in peace without any unwanted interference.


No.
It means you should be able to mine and mission run.
It means someone else should be able to interfere.

You can do both with current mechanics
You can do both with proposed Winter Changes
The OP is proposing that the sandbox to be changed into a themepark.
The OP is stipulating that if you aren't playing the game his way, your doing it wrong.




ps
To the clueless moron that automatically assumed I'm an Empire Carebear
Locator Agent

So you're saying risk is bad for successful players in high-sec?

Because Value = Demand / Supply, it seems that inherent risk is healthy for the game's economy.

It's elementary mathematics.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#102 - 2012-10-09 07:35:21 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Highsec mining definatly needs some sort of risk injected into it. As it stands right now there is no real threat to them.


Lol.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#103 - 2012-10-09 07:35:55 UTC
Kitty Bear wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Hear that guys? Sandbox means that I should be able to mine and mission run in peace without any unwanted interference.


No.
It means you should be able to mine and mission run.
It means someone else should be able to interfere.

You can do both with current mechanics
You can do both with proposed Winter Changes
The OP is proposing that the sandbox to be changed into a themepark.
The OP is stipulating that if you aren't playing the game his way, your doing it wrong.




ps
To the clueless moron that automatically assumed I'm an Empire Carebear
Locator Agent

Swing and a miss, empire carebear.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
darkenspace
Imperial AMARR White Kights
#104 - 2012-10-09 07:36:32 UTC
i am watching oz this is all i had going lol
darkenspace
Imperial AMARR White Kights
#105 - 2012-10-09 07:37:50 UTC
risk is good no risk no log in whats the point realy
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#106 - 2012-10-09 07:41:24 UTC
Cipher Jones wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Highsec mining definatly needs some sort of risk injected into it. As it stands right now there is no real threat to them.


Lol.

Go ahead and list them.
Josef Djugashvilis
#107 - 2012-10-09 07:43:32 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Highsec mining definatly needs some sort of risk injected into it. As it stands right now there is no real threat to them.


You might want to make the goons and their Hulkageddon project aware of this.

This is not a signature.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#108 - 2012-10-09 07:46:38 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Highsec mining definatly needs some sort of risk injected into it. As it stands right now there is no real threat to them.


You might want to make the goons and their Hulkageddon project aware of this.

This post is neither informed nor factual. It asks no valid question and begs a rather cruel one.

Thanks for posting, but please support your arguments with facts or, barring facts, ask an intelligent question.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#109 - 2012-10-09 07:47:53 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
So you're saying risk is bad for successful players in high-sec?

Because Value = Demand / Supply, it seems that inherent risk is healthy for the game's economy.

It's elementary mathematics.


No.

I'm saying that the PvE playstyle is no less valid than a PvP playstyle
A sandbox game should allow for both.

Let me make this totally, absolutely clear. I am NOT advocating 100% safe PvE, because that is themepark gaming, and some people just seem to be incapable of differentiating between the 2 statements.
I will argue against requests for 100% safe PvE as much as I do against ideas such as this one
Each idea tries to push the game away from the sandbox ideal towards a more generic locked in themepark style.


Aren't the really succesful highsec players, the traders ??? with market-pvp risking thier billions of ISK on market trends and speculations. So, no, risk is actually good for them, it seems to spur them on.
Josef Djugashvilis
#110 - 2012-10-09 07:47:56 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Highsec mining definatly needs some sort of risk injected into it. As it stands right now there is no real threat to them.


You might want to make the goons and their Hulkageddon project aware of this.

This post is neither informed nor factual. It asks no valid question and begs a rather cruel one.

Thanks for posting, but please support your arguments with facts or, barring facts, ask an intelligent question.


What?

This is not a signature.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#111 - 2012-10-09 07:49:00 UTC
Kitty Bear wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
So you're saying risk is bad for successful players in high-sec?

Because Value = Demand / Supply, it seems that inherent risk is healthy for the game's economy.

It's elementary mathematics.


No.

I'm saying that the PvE playstyle is no less valid than a PvP playstyle
A sandbox game should allow for both.

Let me make this totally, absolutely clear. I am NOT advocating 100% safe PvE, because that is themepark gaming, and some people just seem to be incapable of differentiating between the 2 statements.
I will argue against requests for 100% safe PvE as much as I do against ideas such as this one
Each idea tries to push the game away from the sandbox ideal towards a more generic locked in themepark style.


Aren't the really succesful highsec players, the traders ??? with market-pvp risking thier billions of ISK on market trends and speculations. So, no, risk is actually good for them, it seems to spur them on.

Except, in Eve Online, mining in high-sec is a PVP activity.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#112 - 2012-10-09 07:59:59 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Highsec mining definatly needs some sort of risk injected into it. As it stands right now there is no real threat to them.


You might want to make the goons and their Hulkageddon project aware of this.

Industrial scale ganking of poorly tanked barges is no longer viable as it requires far too much capital investment and provides only a loss in return. Can flipping is more or less gone now that miners dont drop cans and wardecs are so esily avoided theres not point to them. This leaves the NPCs which are so esily shrugged off they might as well not be there.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#113 - 2012-10-09 08:01:07 UTC
Nerf high-sec belt NPCs.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
darkenspace
Imperial AMARR White Kights
#114 - 2012-10-09 08:04:40 UTC
well player driven universe = means they can pod you gank you steal from you spy on you corp kill you mine missions hire players do all the above for you are to you lol the game is working as it was meant to be played i dont take sides

you got to amit when you log in not knowing what is going to happen good are bad too you is the fun
if nothing happens when you log in then why log in i like eve i have not played as much as some players no matter what you do in game at some point you need to have the option to try all of it ( pvp ) what ever style of it you like you can't mine are mission run for years on end at some point you will want to try the rest of game they can't remove too much risk are the game would become to dull coma like state.


i don't care how you play the game i take the game as it is as it was when i came to it as it should be ( risky )
Hypercake Mix
#115 - 2012-10-09 08:37:31 UTC
IMO, More risk in high-sec is fine as long as it can be mitigated in a simple and careful way. Like using the Survey Scanner and Cargo scanner to check if asteroids and cans are rigged with booby traps or not. Then perhaps gankers could take advantage of the foolish pilots who let a simple trap blow their shields off.

I mean, last time I checked, there were booby-trapped roids in level 4 missions.
Tinja Soikutsu
Perkone
Caldari State
#116 - 2012-10-09 08:43:10 UTC
Sandbox =/= missioning or mining in hisec at zero risk.

Sandbox =/= gankers getting easy kills on missioners or miners in hisec
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#117 - 2012-10-09 08:47:31 UTC
Tinja Soikutsu wrote:
Sandbox =/= missioning or mining in hisec at zero risk.

Sandbox =/= gankers getting easy kills on missioners or miners in hisec

What types of risk would you be in favor of? Do any suggestions from the OP stand out to you as acceptable or desirable?

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Pipa Porto
#118 - 2012-10-09 08:55:03 UTC
Tinja Soikutsu wrote:
Sandbox =/= missioning or mining in hisec at zero risk.

Sandbox =/= gankers getting easy kills on missioners or miners in hisec


Since Suicide Ganking is only as easy as the victim makes it, what's your point?

What risk do Miners and Mission runners face in HS? Crimewatch 2.0 removes the last incentive that Missionrunners and Miners have for forming substantive corps, as the Suspect flag removes the last vestiges of the need for corp membership for mutual protection.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Pipa Porto
#119 - 2012-10-09 08:55:39 UTC
Hypercake Mix wrote:
IMO, More risk in high-sec is fine as long as it can be mitigated in a simple and careful way. Like using the Survey Scanner and Cargo scanner to check if asteroids and cans are rigged with booby traps or not. Then perhaps gankers could take advantage of the foolish pilots who let a simple trap blow their shields off.

I mean, last time I checked, there were booby-trapped roids in level 4 missions.


Like using the D-Scan to look for flocks of Destroyers incoming?

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Tinja Soikutsu
Perkone
Caldari State
#120 - 2012-10-09 08:56:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Tinja Soikutsu
Darth Gustav wrote:
Tinja Soikutsu wrote:
Sandbox =/= missioning or mining in hisec at zero risk.

Sandbox =/= gankers getting easy kills on missioners or miners in hisec

What types of risk would you be in favor of? Do any suggestions from the OP stand out to you as acceptable or desirable?


Well Only been playing a bit over a month so hardly as expert... but leaving items around that block the ability to use smartbombs? Sounds pretty damned exploitive to me.

If belt rats could actually endanger miners, be it miners getting weaker or rats getting stronger, it would encourage more miners to actually pay attention... more miners paying attention means less need for swaddling to protect them from dieing while they AFK.

Honestly up until now been a lowbie 'carebare' myself... more because I've been wanting to get a handle on the game before plunging into any sort of PvP myself. But last couple of days been giving serious thought to exploring or even outright moving into lowsec as a pirate or bounty hunter.

The main thing I would think is to make higher level missions require more and more PvP like tactics, and thus more and more PvP like fits.

Pipa Porto wrote:
Since Suicide Ganking is only as easy as the victim makes it, what's your point?

What risk do Miners and Mission runners face in HS? Crimewatch 2.0 removes the last incentive that Missionrunners and Miners have for forming substantive corps, as the Suspect flag removes the last vestiges of the need for corp membership for mutual protection.


Ahhh, perhaps you misinterpreted =/= as something other than "Does not equal".

You're right, they don't face any meaningful risks, and that IMO, is a problem.