EVE General Discussion

It apparently isn't yours.

You complained about highsec being "single player".

I carefully, and with mostly small words, explained to you how it isn't.

Maybe I used too many big words.

I didn't say it is now, although it's close. There are plenty of people who want it to be though. I had a discussion with someone a few days ago who advocated literally banning all pvp encounters from hisec. People like that want a single player game.

Clearly, being an always on PvP game implies group or solo play written on stone and also implies different income based on PvP zone!

Oh wait, in WH you make the same income in any PvP lake and so you do in GW2. You can solo or group or blob play at leisure and guess what, those are both MMOs and (WH) always on PvP.

It's not the English, it's the uneducated thinking behind it lol.

YES!

Why is that a hard concept to grasp? In a game about people and conflict, the people who are better at making friends and fighting people when, the people who are worse at those things lose.

This is the natural order of any game, if you can't grasp the strategies and mechanics of chess, you should lose every chess match you attempt. If you hand/eye coordination sucks, you should lose every ping pong game you play etc etc.

So you think you should be able to suck at the core things a sandbox MMO requires and still get the same rewards as people who don't suck at it? What kind of communist land do you come from?

1) WoW is not even a PvP game nor has the structural facilities to be considered a market and player driven economy.
Try comparing with something PvP and with actual mostly player crafted stuff like GW2 or DFO or Entropia.

2) A lone player can reliably crush ANY market he wants except Tritanium, Pyerite and Nitrogen Isotopes and a couple of big huge "beasts". Call it "aneddoctal", I don't mind.

3) Typical case of putting your head under the sand and sing "tralalah". I don't EVER call "evil goonie", I consider them a large alliance doing their interests. Which is really FINE, as long as they don't dress up their interests with forum e-ideology.

4) Here's all the grasp needed: "Aryth and co. exploited the problem". Which I don't even find to be expecially bad, since CCP are notorious for being completely oblivious to feedback. But that in my dictionary that does not mean they are the saints you try painting them to be. Of course you conveniently skipped the second part about me having found a second flaw and NOT having exploited it... and CCP fixed it without me doing any fireworks, proclaim threads and so on.

5) It's not about red herrings, it's about WHs missing *stations*, where the hell do you want to stick your awesomesauce 10000000 slots station in a WH? All you (and I) can hope is to get buffed POSes structures for industry but WH dwellers just won't get as many slots as any other sec, it's just the nature of zero civilization / zero facilities WHs.

6) I have ideals of mine... and guess what I tell them. Also please notice how a sandbox is neutral by nature, it cannot favor one golden path else it becomes a WoW clone, with canned progression, magic bullets and whatever crap.

7) Aka 6 edit: I have, but you unsurprisingly keep not wanting seeing them so it's useless to repeat them.

By the way the other areas *don't* require social interaction, but they greatly benefit off it. Hi sec does not require social interaction, it less greatly benefits off it. Whereas the "future" for an other area player is uncapped and unlimited, an hi sec player will not be able to even compare with that.
Other PvP games too reward social interaction but don't require it. The prize is in the results of social interaction itself. A soloer may create his "skillpro" videos killing 1..2..3 other guys, a big corp can deal with hundreds.
If you were in hi sec you'd NEVER become a super-alliance, you'd NEVER monopolize markets, you'd NEVER have your own empire vs a similar null sec based alliance.

Finally, prove me how solo gameplay is more rewarding than group play. The very fact you exist and are the strongest in game (and not a soloer) is the living proof that by socializing you can beat everyone and everything. That is, being social brings in such huge rewards that you beat everyone and everything *despite* missing very needed industry facilities, slots and whatever.

1. World of Warcraft is a pvp game it has PVP servers and a "functioning" auction house. It's economy is player driven, it has massive amounts of subs and its economy is in shambles.

2. I will call it anecdotal till you can show me some proof instead of shouting talking points, :foxnews:. Take a look at the Gallente Ice interdiction and take a look at OTEC, both of those required massive amounts of effort and massive amounts of players to manipulate those markets. Hmm now doesn't this make your argument just a tad weaker.

3. http://eve-search.com/thread/183455-1/page/23#661

4. Never said we were saints, nothing you said here corrects your misrepresentation of the events.

5. I agree the moving of services in general from stations to POS with the POS revamp would be ideal as it solves a lot of problems. The rest of that is just a red herring and does not address this threads topic, the risk/reward balance of highsec vs other sec status areas.

6. Still no empirical evidence.

7. Its hard for me to see what is not there I am not a psychic.

8. This is such a load of crap I hope you brushed your teeth after that came out of your mouth. WH requires social interaction. Sov 0.0 requires social interaction. NPC 0.0 requires social interaction. Lowsec is the only one you MAY be able to get away with no social interaction.

9. Easy an AFK miner in highsec will make more isk/hr than an ATK miner in nullsec. Solo play out doing group play.

You contradict yourself:

"If you were in hi sec you'd NEVER become a super-alliance, you'd NEVER monopolize markets, you'd NEVER have your own empire vs a similar null sec based alliance."

"A lone player can reliably crush ANY market I want except Tritanium, Pyerite and Nitrogen Isotopes and a couple of big huge "beasts". Call it "aneddoctal", I don't mind."

Which is it? Either a single player can crash/monopolize/do bad things to markets or a single player cannot crash/monopolize/do bad things to markets.

First of all, can we all agree on that (whilst perhaps not healthy inflation wise and all) amassing a fortune ad infinitum is a valid goal to strive for just like any other goal in EVE whether it is taking over the whole damn galaxy or becoming the biggest badass trader that can crash whatever market he or she merely looks at or an outlaw whose sole wish is to pod every single other player that exists in EVE?

Cause that is, you know, what I thought the whole point of EVE was to begin with.

The problems is HOW these things are done, not that they ARE done.

Certain suggestions are thus simply invalid, such as radically boosting rewards here and there for the simple fact that it would upset the market in a way which you don't want to upset. Altering production in high-sec versus low-sec or re-distributing resources, yes, that is all fine and dandy but this in itself will hardly incite players to go to the more exciting systems. As for increasing ISK rewards, no, just NO. More inflow of ISK is the last thing EVE needs right now.

At the same time you simply cannot force people to go to whatever security system people now want to populate. Forcing people never works.

In the case of low- and null-sec you are thus only left with a single remaining option and that is to incite players and convince them that they have a FAIR chance in low- and null-sec IF they play smart. Again, without increasing isk rewards in low- and null-sec, because again, we don't want to pump more ISK into the game already.

This does mean that this remaining option only have a single path to follow whether people like it or not and that is changing the fundamental gameplay of EVE in certain aspects. This in turn will mean that the biggest alliances and corps etc will have to accept that their power will have to be altered in certain aspects. And that they will have to work a bit harder in order to retain what they have.

Yeah, there will probably be players who will not go to low- and nullsec no matter what happens. As some may or may not know, I personally feel that high-sec is too secure and that I would love to see criminals given much more freedom - at the expense of certain REASONABLE high-sec freedoms of their own because consequences must still exist - that is the whole point of being a criminal after all. You basically choose a different set of rules to abide and play by in this sandbox. And if this was to scare off high-sec players from EVE then sorry, then EVE simply wasn't the game for them, just as much as WoW or many of the other main-stream MMO's aren't the games for me.

Sorry but there is no escaping this. You people can diddle around this issue for all eternity for all I care, but this one fact will never change. I simply wonder whether CCP understands this or not. I am absolutely convinced that it is possible to have a reasonable and acceptable risk:reward balance for every kind of player but that can only be achieved by altering the fundamental gameplay mechanics itself.

Oh, but it does work.

But this is not really about forcing dedicated highsec players into nullsec. This is about getting nullsec players to move their highsec alts to nullsec, rather then just leaving a PvP character who only logs in to "blob". that is the dirty secret behind why nullsec is so empty, and the small gang PvP'ers cry that they can't find anything but a few ratters to try and shoot at.

I also believe that being a sandbox game should mean that any style of game play should be possible.

But when one looks at the comparative advantage of the security regions, highsec wins on way too many counts. A good chunk of that 70% or so players in highsec are the alts of nullsec players. Missions are infinitely available. It has the best industry infrastructure. Most of the ore is on par with nullsec in terms of isk/hr. And add relative safety to all that, thanks to Concord. This means that, while any style of play is possible, it is often most rewarding in highsec for many reasons. Less loss, better o

CCP has made so many facets of highsec both good and easy that is does in effect "force" players to go there and stay there.

So, is this about highsec being too good then, or is it about the rewards of nullsec not being distributed in a way that allows everyone supporting a nullsec adventure to live there effectively?

Because the problem you claim here, nullsec players having money-making alts in highsec, is one that exists for every version of highsec that has playable content at all.

The existence of Jita is sufficient, if highsec were only the 3 jumps around Jita, nullsec players would *still* have their money-making alts there playing the Jita market and taking advantage of what little other profit was left in those few systems.

The problem isn't that highsec is too good, the problem is that nullsec doesn't scale to allow enough players to enjoy the content there.

It *could* be fixed, with strong but narrow sovereignty and scalable content in nullsec, but we are a long way from that point and I don't think CCP is planning on moving the game in that direction.