These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Hypocrisy of High Sec

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
White Quake
Doomheim
#201 - 2012-10-31 19:44:52 UTC
Marvin Narville wrote:
White Quake wrote:
Andski wrote:
White Quake wrote:
absolute rubbish

high sec players have a right to play how they want to

they pay to play

not pay to play your version of eve


you're right, hisec players are the only ones paying to play this game


dont twist words

high sec players dont demand pvpers mission run or mine

so thats a fail statement from the get go


I don't think its a matter of twisting words. I think its a matter of leveling playing fields. In other words, as it could be reasonably argued that every activity in this game is in some way related to PvP, one side should not have advantages via game mechanics or otherwise as regards said activity. When game mechanics are implemented which prevent one side from enjoying a style of play, they are in essence creating an unequal playing field. Mechanics and rules are required to prevent certain playstyles in High Sec, whereas those same rules are absent in null sec.

I don't think mechanics should prevent or penalize one style of play to begin with, as is the current case regarding pvp, ganking and so on in high sec. However, if we are to accept such mechanics, there should be balancing factors, concessions of sorts to those who are having said play style infringed upon. So if PvPers and gankers are having their chosen method of play infringed upon by hardcoded game mechanics, I think many are simply stating that this is intrinsically imbalanced, and some concession needs to be made to rectify it.


How do they have an advantage? If a null sec player cant make as much isk as an empire pilot L2P

its as simple as that, i make more money pvping and ratting than i do, doing anything else, including lvl 4 alts and ice miner alts
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#202 - 2012-10-31 19:45:08 UTC
White Quake wrote:
Absolute rubbish again

if you want to gank a mackinaw it should take an expensive ship, not a throwaway destroyer to cause billions in damages, eve is harsh, nothing is easy

ofc they asked for a buff

why should you have it easy?


"eve is harsh, therefore I should be immune"

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#203 - 2012-10-31 19:45:40 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Also,

Hecate Shaw wrote:
Can't help but think that everyone is overlooking a simple fact - the changes they are so eager to make to push whatever out to null and to make null better than high sec do not fit with the game setting! High sec is supposed to be civilized space, with the protections of government and law enforcement. There is NO REASON it should not be the best place for industry.

Why would it be in the government and law enforcement's interest to let feared, immortal space demi-gods profoundly removed from the rest of humanity produce endless amounts of warships and weaponry in their space? "Come to Amarr Prime - Emperor's Station for a special deal on orbital bombardment modules and Tornadoes!". I mean, try to set up a military-grade bomb factory in your garage and see if the local government agrees to that. Really, it makes more sense if the private sector weapon factories were set up in the outbacks, unsupervised wastelands and criminal dens.

That analogy doesn't really work unless his local government considers him a feared, immortal demi-god, in which case they would likely handle him differently than a "normal" person setting up a bomb factory in his garage.
Yeah, the crazier and more feared you are, the more likely the government is going to let you set up an orbital bombardment factory in orbit of one of their densely populated planets. Good one.
White Quake
Doomheim
#204 - 2012-10-31 19:45:46 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
White Quake wrote:
The issue is everyone blues each other and then runs out of targets, hostile gangs come in and get bobbed and dont come back. null sec screwed itself and blame high sec

This is absolute rubbish, the problem has nothing to do with "hurr blues in all directions" and everything to do with "hurr why should I go to nullsec there's no industrial capacity to utilize and durr why should I go to nullsec I can earn more or less the same running L4s in perfect safety and I can watch movies while doing so"


if u think u can make more money running 4's than doing anoms, u have quite CLEARLY never run a lvl 4 in your life
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#205 - 2012-10-31 19:46:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
White Quake wrote:
if you want to gank a mackinaw it should take an expensive ship, not a throwaway destroyer to cause billions in damages, eve is harsh, nothing is easy

Oh look, it's the "you shouldn't be able to gank an expensive ship with a cheap ship" fallacy again. "hurr I shouldn't be able to shoot a titan down with a frigate because a frigate is cheap".

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
White Quake
Doomheim
#206 - 2012-10-31 19:46:36 UTC
Andski wrote:
White Quake wrote:
Absolute rubbish again

if you want to gank a mackinaw it should take an expensive ship, not a throwaway destroyer to cause billions in damages, eve is harsh, nothing is easy

ofc they asked for a buff

why should you have it easy?


"eve is harsh, therefore I should be immune"


and this means what?

or just another goon idiot twisting words?

pvp pilots have it easy, u say *thats just eve* they give miners more protection you say *omg wtfbbqcryhader*
White Quake
Doomheim
#207 - 2012-10-31 19:47:03 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
White Quake wrote:
if you want to gank a mackinaw it should take an expensive ship, not a throwaway destroyer to cause billions in damages, eve is harsh, nothing is easy

Oh look, it's the "you shouldn't be able to gank an expensive ship with a cheap ship" fallacy again. "hurr I shouldn't be able to shoot a titan down with a frigate because a frigate is chea".


No one has ever killed a titan in just a frig, stupid post tbfh
White Quake
Doomheim
#208 - 2012-10-31 19:49:17 UTC
keep replying, im gonna sit here and tear every argument down to its base fact and prove you wrong
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#209 - 2012-10-31 19:49:45 UTC
White Quake wrote:
and this means what?

or just another goon idiot twisting words?

pvp pilots have it easy, u say *thats just eve* they give miners more protection you say *omg wtfbbqcryhader*


it's the hypocrisy of saying "eve is harsh" while demanding that your ships are made less vulnerable to ganks with the nth buff to hisec safety

CCP has also shown that they're willing to disincentivize freighter ganking as much as possible because publords should be able to autopilot their freighters loaded with 50bn of faction loot

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#210 - 2012-10-31 19:49:56 UTC
White Quake wrote:
if u think u can make more money running 4's than doing anoms, u have quite CLEARLY never run a lvl 4 in your life

I said "more or less". Take the extra effort of keeping safe into account, along with the occasional loss, then compare that to L4s where you can watch movies while you rake in the isk, and vOv

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#211 - 2012-10-31 19:50:12 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
Lord Zim wrote:

Oh look, it's the "you shouldn't be able to gank an expensive ship with a cheap ship" fallacy again. "hurr I shouldn't be able to shoot a titan down with a frigate because a frigate is chea".


Oh look its the ignoring "risk versus rewards" fallacy: because cheap ships killing vastly more expensive ships & ISK risk is being mitigated... see what I did there?
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#212 - 2012-10-31 19:50:38 UTC
White Quake wrote:
keep replying, im gonna sit here and tear every argument down to its base fact and prove you wrong


you haven't proven anyone wrong you're just showing how you're not actually what you claim to be

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#213 - 2012-10-31 19:50:52 UTC
Hecate Shaw wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Hecate Shaw wrote:
Can't help but think that everyone is overlooking a simple fact - the changes they are so eager to make to push whatever out to null and to make null better than high sec do not fit with the game setting! High sec is supposed to be civilized space, with the protections of government and law enforcement. There is NO REASON it should not be the best place for industry. I agreed with the mining buff for the same reason - I'm in civilized territory, why should I have to armor as if I was in the middle of a war zone?

Sure, push the bulk of mining more into the frontiers (if you want to really annoy those who enjoy mining) or better make belts into something you scan down. Say, pockets one quarter the size of current belts, four times as many, and they respawn in a new place in the same system when mined out (with a delay). Give the bots and afk miners a setback, while not really hurting those of us that actually sit at our computers. Easy to justify, too: the regular belts in highsec are becoming depleted, and miners are having to search more for remaining resources.

As far as manufacturing in null...yeah, it should be possible to create industrial upgrades that bring an outpost close to the level of high sec, but to exceed it? In the lawless wastes? Not so sure on that.

Because the gold rush happened on the east coast?

Or how about the fact that high sec has this group called concord, yet no one's paying them to protect them. In no country is freedom "free". Yet in high sec you don't pay anything for the safety you recieve, that is enforced by CONCORD.

Or are you trying to tell me that countries with the highest defense budget pays the least for that defense? The US begs to differ with you.
Yep, the gold rush should be in less settled territory - that is where you find ABC roids, the last time I looked. Maybe CCP should rebalance the amounts of the various minerals needed for manufacture, placing a bit more emphasis on the top end. Removing all resources from high sec isn't the answer, though; the iron and copper mines don't suddenly dry up because gold is found in the Yukon.

As far as CONCORD is concerned, there is a tax on all trade, and fees for other things that are supposed to be the capsuleer's tithe to CONCORD. If it would make you happy, I'm sure most high-sec dwellers would be more than happy to see a reasonable increase, or even separate new fees of some kind. I do think that all such fees and taxes should be absent from null, or imposed only by whoever holds sov.

I don't agree with the moving of minerals to other systems either.

Taxes are non factor in high sec.
You have skills that make broker and transaction taxes next to nothing.
You build in a station not owned by you, but get perfect refining and pay next to nothing to use them. You're using SOMEONE ELSES FACTORY to build for next to no cost. That's like me going and building something in a factory that's owned by another corporation and them not really charging me to do so.

And high sec is not supposed to be civilized space and null a wasteland. High sec is only supposed to be safer, and the further away you get from each empires epicenter the longer it takes CONCORD to get to you and the less safe it becomes. Null is just space that hasn't been claimed by one of the four factions, and therefore has no CONCORD control.

Null sec isn't the place you go just for blowing people up, it's for empire building when you don't want to be affiliated with one of the existing empires. Just because it's player driven doesn't mean it should be the shittiest place to live and make ISK, it only means you don't pay tax to the NPC empires, you pay it to a player run one.

My point about the gold rush was that people went west in droves TO MAKE FORTUNES. You don't go to the frontier in EVE for that reason currently.

It doesn't make any sense that you're paying less to utilize someone elses factories than we can in null. Setting up a factory has nothing to do with an area of space being civilized or not, you're using anothe companies facilities and you're hardly paying anything to do so, that just doesn't make any sense.

You should be setting up PoSes in high sec if you want your own factory. If you use another companies, you should be paying considerably more for it.

As a full time industrialist I'm not exactly flying all over the place and putting myself in harms way, not to mention I do indeed live in a very civilized area of space controlled and protected by the players themselves. So as an industrialist who doesn't actually end up in harms way anymroe than one in high sec, what reason do I actually have to play in null if I don't pvp? That extends to high sec indistrialist, why come here if you don't pvp; as an industrialist you're probably going to be just as safe here as you are in high.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#214 - 2012-10-31 19:51:44 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:

Oh look, it's the "you shouldn't be able to gank an expensive ship with a cheap ship" fallacy again. "hurr I shouldn't be able to shoot a titan down with a frigate because a frigate is chea".


Oh look its the ignoring "risk versus rewards" fallacy: cheap ships killing vastly more expensive ships... see what I did there?

"battleships should be utterly invulnerable to frigates because they're cheap and a BS is expensive."

"battleships should not be killable by industrials because they're cheap and a BS is expensive."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6so9AT4UydQ

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#215 - 2012-10-31 19:51:46 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Oh look its the ignoring "risk versus rewards" fallacy: cheap ships killing vastly more expensive ships... see what I did there?


oh man the guy who advocates for hisec safety buffs and a revert to the escalation incursion nerfs is talking "risk versus reward"

this is gold

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
White Quake
Doomheim
#216 - 2012-10-31 19:52:38 UTC
Andski wrote:
DarthNefarius wrote:
Oh look its the ignoring "risk versus rewards" fallacy: cheap ships killing vastly more expensive ships... see what I did there?


oh man the guy who advocates for hisec safety buffs and a revert to the escalation incursion nerfs is talking "risk versus reward"

this is gold


yes lets make bs killable in frigs

and freighters killable in shuttles

and lets watch eve crash and burn
TharOkha
0asis Group
#217 - 2012-10-31 19:53:55 UTC
White Quake wrote:

The issue is everyone blues each other and then runs out of targets, hostile gangs come in and get bobbed and dont come back. null sec screwed itself and blame high sec

stupid argument

Nah i dont agree with this post. Nullsec mechanic is realy flawed. And they are not blue to each other Blink But i also dont like that they blaming hisec for this situation.

CODE. Venture hunt contest in a nutshell
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#218 - 2012-10-31 19:53:55 UTC
White Quake wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
White Quake wrote:
absolute rubbish

high sec players have a right to play how they want to[


they pay to play

not really, since that's not what a sandbox is
i don't have a right to play with an invulnerable ship that's immune to concord and gank people as they undock from jita endlessly, even if I really really want to

you pay to access the EVE server, not for 'rights'

hth


absolute rubbish, high sec players dont get absolute secuirty i.e ganking

again dont twist words to suit your own argument

Noone is twisting your words. When you say people "have a right to a play how they want to", it is interpreted that you believe that players have a right to play "how they want". It's not my fault you don't think your statements through.

Quote:
keep replying, im gonna sit here and tear every argument down to its base fact and prove you wrong

Hahahaha awwww...
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#219 - 2012-10-31 19:54:13 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Yeah, the crazier and more feared you are, the more likely the government is going to let you set up an orbital bombardment factory in orbit of one of their densely populated planets. Good one.

Actually, beyond a certain threshold yes. Consider the implications of creating an enemy out of not an individual but rather an undying entity capable of piloting the greatest weapons you have at far greater efficiency and effect than you can. Now add to that the fact that there are thousands of them and their willingness to use that force against you with minimal fear of loss the moment you are no longer a good business partner.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#220 - 2012-10-31 19:54:13 UTC
White Quake wrote:
yes lets make bs killable in frigs

I've killed BSes while in either a frig or a noobship, I forget which it was, it was quite a few years ago and we were 100+ vs 4-5 BSes.

White Quake wrote:
and freighters killable in shuttles

They have guns now? Interesting.

White Quake wrote:
and lets watch eve crash and burn

mlyp

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat