These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Can we do something about the idiots in highsec already CCP?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#341 - 2013-11-06 13:42:20 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Shalua Rui wrote:

According to whom? Not everybody likes to get in trouble all the time...


Then why aren't they sitting on the porch doing crochet instead of playing a conflict driven MMO about space ships (most of which can mount copious amounts of guns)?
You realise that this game isn't only about the guns though right? There are several activities that in fact require no guns.
I'm not opposed to ganking, I've done it myself on several occasions, but it is too easy to do and with no realistic downsides. Your neg sec status does not stop you doing much and can be corrected to a livable level with only a couple of hundred mil.
I think ganking needs to be severely cut back, but at the same time there should be more of a reason to go out to low, null and WH space by increasing reward and decreasing high sec reward. High sec can generate the same level of income as null with relative ease, which is wrong. But at the same time high sec can be as dangerous as null, which again is wrong.
Both sides need to be looked at and balanced to what they are designed to be.

IMO, Null needs more rewards and higher risk (harder hitting PVE at the very least, scrambling belt rats, etc).
High needs more safety and less reward.
WH space needs ice, so self-sustaining is easier, and higher risk+reward
Low sec needs to have reduced risk to players forcing unwanted PvP (so removal of gate ad station guns, etc) and more exploration rewards.

This would encourage people to live in WHs, to explore low sec with the risk of being hunted, to group in null, and to safely pick up dregs in high sec. For me, that's what the 4 sections of space are supposed to do.


I simply don't understand the kind of personality that looks at my post and says "you think it's all about guns"?

Where, exactly did i say any such thing. I said EVE HAS guns. Try reading a post without the "crazy colored" glasses, if you don;t understand what I'm saying, ask me instead of making a stupid assumption.
Shalua Rui
Rui Freelance Mining
#342 - 2013-11-06 13:42:41 UTC
Omar Alharazaad wrote:
It worries me that someday the ultra-carebears may actually get their way and inadvertently cause their own demise, potentially taking the rest of us with them. I've seen it happen to industry-specific local markets IRL and it was worthy of a double facepalm.

Yea, only that IRL the "Goons" hold all the power... and they are inapt in just about anything else then KEEPING power, be it trading, pvp (war) and everything else... oh, wait, that's EVE too! Blink

"ginger forum goddess, space gypsy and stone nibbler extraordinaire!" Shalua Rui - CEO and founder of Rui Freelance Mining (RFLM)
Smohq Anmirorz
State War Academy
Caldari State
#343 - 2013-11-06 13:48:37 UTC
Oh, man! I read every page of this post! Bring back OP, popcorn needs salt from those oh-so-salty tears.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#344 - 2013-11-06 13:49:37 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
They'll never cease to exist because people are people. Some peopel choose to see only those things that they want to while ignoring the rest, thinking that if "only those other things go away, things will be perfect". In this game as in real life, they are wrong.
Do you not see anything hypocritical in this at all?
Gankers are now considerably more common than when I started. So technically, the "carebears" actually want the game to stay the way it originally was. Sounds to me like you just want the easy kills. I personally enjoy EVE for support a broad spectrum of playstyles. If the whole game turned into pure pew pew, you can bet your ass my accounts would shut down.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Skeln Thargensen
Doomheim
#345 - 2013-11-06 13:51:39 UTC
really just ignore the opinions of nullbears on this. they don't have to deal with the mass of noise that is highsec, and when we bring a fleet full of neutrals to them they frikkin hate us Evil

forums.  serious business.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#346 - 2013-11-06 13:51:53 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Shalua Rui wrote:

According to whom? Not everybody likes to get in trouble all the time...


Then why aren't they sitting on the porch doing crochet instead of playing a conflict driven MMO about space ships (most of which can mount copious amounts of guns)?
You realise that this game isn't only about the guns though right? There are several activities that in fact require no guns.
I'm not opposed to ganking, I've done it myself on several occasions, but it is too easy to do and with no realistic downsides. Your neg sec status does not stop you doing much and can be corrected to a livable level with only a couple of hundred mil.
I think ganking needs to be severely cut back, but at the same time there should be more of a reason to go out to low, null and WH space by increasing reward and decreasing high sec reward. High sec can generate the same level of income as null with relative ease, which is wrong. But at the same time high sec can be as dangerous as null, which again is wrong.
Both sides need to be looked at and balanced to what they are designed to be.

IMO, Null needs more rewards and higher risk (harder hitting PVE at the very least, scrambling belt rats, etc).
High needs more safety and less reward.
WH space needs ice, so self-sustaining is easier, and higher risk+reward
Low sec needs to have reduced risk to players forcing unwanted PvP (so removal of gate ad station guns, etc) and more exploration rewards.

This would encourage people to live in WHs, to explore low sec with the risk of being hunted, to group in null, and to safely pick up dregs in high sec. For me, that's what the 4 sections of space are supposed to do.


I simply don't understand the kind of personality that looks at my post and says "you think it's all about guns"?

Where, exactly did i say any such thing. I said EVE HAS guns. Try reading a post without the "crazy colored" glasses, if you don;t understand what I'm saying, ask me instead of making a stupid assumption.

"most of which can mount copious amounts of guns"
It would be that bit there. Most of it doesn't mount to copious amounts of guns. I run 8 accounts, with 3 chars on each and yet I only have 4 characters even trained with weapons at all.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#347 - 2013-11-06 13:54:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Skeln Thargensen wrote:
semantics
No. Just facts.

Quote:
they made a choice not to change AP regardless.
…and things remaining the same as always is not a nerf.

Quote:
the point is that being active is entirely robotic behaviour as the aspect of gameplay is entirely uninvolving
Actually, the point is that in being active, you can be… you know… an active participant in the process, which solves the vast majority of problems. If you decide to single-task, then that's a problem with your working process, not with the game design. If anything, a low-maintenance task such as arrowing up and down the overview and docking at gates is perfect for multi-tasking and maximising your productiveness. Making it boring is a choice; you can always choose not to do it that way.

Shalua Rui wrote:
Just, it's not totally true, though... EVE is as much fueled by destruction and conflict as it is fueled by creation and harmony (ie. teamwork). At least it should be, if it want's to be a true sandbox one day... right now, the destruction and conflict part weights much heavier, that's why contrived systems like CONCORD exist.
Fair enough. Of course, the ones who are complaining about he destruction and conflict are also the ones who break out in hives at the thought of creation and teamwork, so they're out in the cold regardless.

Lucas Kell wrote:
I'm not opposed to ganking, I've done it myself on several occasions, but it is too easy to do and with no realistic downsides.
The reason it's too easy and with no realistic downsides is because that's exactly the kind of environment the players have chosen. If they're unhappy with that choice, they can make a different one.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#348 - 2013-11-06 13:54:50 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Clyde Belvar wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Good Posting wrote:
Do like me. When you see a tornado gang camping a station, switch to your ceptor, split guns and ***** kill mails like a baws.


Confirming that this is why hauler ships have turret slots.


lol and what,since haulers have gun slots they should fight against ganks,dude from which planet did you came from?


No, dirt-for-brains.

The guy I quoted said that he *****s on killmails with an interceptor.

I said I ***** on killmails even with a hauler, because I put guns on them in the event that someone near me is ganked, so I can fire on the gankers and get on their CONCORD killmail.

good luck doing this in freighter

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Shalua Rui
Rui Freelance Mining
#349 - 2013-11-06 13:58:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Shalua Rui
Tippia wrote:
Fair enough. Of course, the ones who are complaining about he destruction and conflict are also the ones who break out in hives at the thought of creation and teamwork, so they're out in the cold regardless.

Yea, well, I can't argue there...

...maybe it just should be made more attractive?

"ginger forum goddess, space gypsy and stone nibbler extraordinaire!" Shalua Rui - CEO and founder of Rui Freelance Mining (RFLM)
oOReikaOo Michiko
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#350 - 2013-11-06 13:59:05 UTC  |  Edited by: oOReikaOo Michiko
.

Lucas Kell wrote:
I'm not opposed to ganking, I've done it myself on several occasions, but it is too easy to do and with no realistic downsides.


Quote:
The reason it's too easy and with no realistic downsides is because that's exactly the kind of environment the players have chosen. If they're unhappy with that choice, they can make a different one.


Pretty sure he's trying to make that choice by making the thread

*edit * I went a different route.. I gave the New Order a billion isk and am going to dedicate my characters to advancing their cause.. why? Because as seen here nothing gets changed on the forums.. tears must be shed for there to be change.. and oh boy do they make tears

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfSDNPFCPfY
Smohq Anmirorz
State War Academy
Caldari State
#351 - 2013-11-06 14:06:25 UTC
Tippia wrote:


Quote:
the point is that being active is entirely robotic behaviour as the aspect of gameplay is entirely uninvolving
Actually, the point is that in being active, you can be… you know… an active participant in the process, which solves the vast majority of problems. If you decide to single-task, then that's a problem with your working process, not with the game design. If anything, a low-maintenance task such as arrowing up and down the overview and docking at gates is perfect for multi-tasking and maximising your productiveness. Making it boring is a choice; you can always choose not to do it that way.


That's starting to sound dangerously close to telling people how they should play. "Multi-task or face boredom".

He has a valid point.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#352 - 2013-11-06 14:07:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
oOReikaOo Michiko wrote:
.

Lucas Kell wrote:
I'm not opposed to ganking, I've done it myself on several occasions, but it is too easy to do and with no realistic downsides.
Quote:
The reason it's too easy and with no realistic downsides is because that's exactly the kind of environment the players have chosen. If they're unhappy with that choice, they can make a different one.
Pretty sure he's trying to make that choice by making the thread
Exactly. We're not in the situation we are now because all players want it, were in this situation because null players want to be able to easily massacre high sec "bears", and because the power groups that have generally been in control of the game direction have steered it that way.
Pretty soon high sec POCOs will be controlled by the same groups too.

Don't get me wrong, personally I don't care that much either way, considering I'm in one of those groups. I just worry that the future of the game is heading towards a "HTFU and PvP or GTFO" dominating gameplay, which strips away the sand part of the sandbox. It means we melted down all the sand, made ourselves some glass swords and now that and a few scraps of sand is all that's left. Soon after that it ends in broken glass and tears, and they call our mums.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#353 - 2013-11-06 14:09:17 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Shalua Rui wrote:

According to whom? Not everybody likes to get in trouble all the time...


Then why aren't they sitting on the porch doing crochet instead of playing a conflict driven MMO about space ships (most of which can mount copious amounts of guns)?
You realise that this game isn't only about the guns though right? There are several activities that in fact require no guns.
I'm not opposed to ganking, I've done it myself on several occasions, but it is too easy to do and with no realistic downsides. Your neg sec status does not stop you doing much and can be corrected to a livable level with only a couple of hundred mil.
I think ganking needs to be severely cut back, but at the same time there should be more of a reason to go out to low, null and WH space by increasing reward and decreasing high sec reward. High sec can generate the same level of income as null with relative ease, which is wrong. But at the same time high sec can be as dangerous as null, which again is wrong.
Both sides need to be looked at and balanced to what they are designed to be.

IMO, Null needs more rewards and higher risk (harder hitting PVE at the very least, scrambling belt rats, etc).
High needs more safety and less reward.
WH space needs ice, so self-sustaining is easier, and higher risk+reward
Low sec needs to have reduced risk to players forcing unwanted PvP (so removal of gate ad station guns, etc) and more exploration rewards.

This would encourage people to live in WHs, to explore low sec with the risk of being hunted, to group in null, and to safely pick up dregs in high sec. For me, that's what the 4 sections of space are supposed to do.

There's already crapload of isk to be made in null. Despite me and my alt being blown up and losing 2 to 3 billion today, those 2 ships made me around 20 billion in null in the last 2 months.

I made 2.5 billion running sites in the last 24 hours, one hour here, one hour there... there is no comparison at all to high sec. in terms of profit vs null sec.

People will not go out there if they're risk averse. The carebear's wont, the gankers won't either, they're identical in their adversity to risk. Only the carebears are being punished for it though.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#354 - 2013-11-06 14:16:24 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
There's already crapload of isk to be made in null. Despite me and my alt being blown up and losing 2 to 3 billion today, those 2 ships made me around 20 billion in null in the last 2 months.

I made 2.5 billion running sites in the last 24 hours, one hour here, one hour there... there is no comparison at all to high sec. in terms of profit vs null sec.

People will not go out there if they're risk averse. The carebear's wont, the gankers won't either, they're identical in their adversity to risk. Only the carebears are being punished for it though.
Sure, a single individual can go out there and make a fair amount of isk. sporadically. You realise the sites you run out there are not infinite right?
There's a difference between something being profitable for a single individual, and something being profitable for the populous. In null, a handful of people can empty those sites. That means that the average amount of isk is heavily weighted by the guys not doing those.
If you look at high sec however, L4s for example are infinite, and can make everyone, simultaneously rich.
You are making a common mistake, where you take your personal experience, assume that to be the average, then come to a conclusion based on that flawed average. Your conclusion is wrong.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#355 - 2013-11-06 14:18:26 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
There's already crapload of isk to be made in null. Despite me and my alt being blown up and losing 2 to 3 billion today, those 2 ships made me around 20 billion in null in the last 2 months.

I made 2.5 billion running sites in the last 24 hours, one hour here, one hour there... there is no comparison at all to high sec. in terms of profit vs null sec.

People will not go out there if they're risk averse. The carebear's wont, the gankers won't either, they're identical in their adversity to risk. Only the carebears are being punished for it though.
Sure, a single individual can go out there and make a fair amount of isk. sporadically. You realise the sites you run out there are not infinite right?
There's a difference between something being profitable for a single individual, and something being profitable for the populous. In null, a handful of people can empty those sites. That means that the average amount of isk is heavily weighted by the guys not doing those.
If you look at high sec however, L4s for example are infinite, and can make everyone, simultaneously rich.
You are making a common mistake, where you take your personal experience, assume that to be the average, then come to a conclusion based on that flawed average. Your conclusion is wrong.

They are actually infinite. When one despawns, it respawns somewhere else. I have never run out of combat sites to run. Of course I'm not restricted by Sov or agreements but that's a player made choice, not a game mechanic limitation.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Johnny Marzetti
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#356 - 2013-11-06 14:27:16 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

4. As for my running anoms in null, lol. I'm doing that to fund my 8 man stealth bomber wing, which will be coming to a VFK near you shortly.


Harry Forever has already demonstrated that you only need one bomber to tilt at windmills in Deklein.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#357 - 2013-11-06 14:30:36 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
They are actually infinite. When one despawns, it respawns somewhere else. I have never run out of combat sites to run. Of course I'm not restricted by Sov or agreements but that's a player made choice, not a game mechanic limitation.
Where do you get the opinion that they are infinite? Just because you don't run out during your limited play times doesn't mean they are infinite lol.
And even if they were infinite, they still wouldn;t be able to be done by more than a handful of people, since there would be no more than a handful of sites. You made 20b in 60 days. Lets be super generous and say that's only 2 hours per day (average), so that 166m/hour.
Now imagine there are 10 people all competing for that income.
Now imagine there are 100 people.
Now imagine their are 1000 people.

Do you see where there's a slight problem in your isk generation when looked at from the point of view of a population of a sector?

Conversely, every player in the entire game could go to high sec and run L4 missions, and aside from the lag it would generate, would not affect each others income significantly.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#358 - 2013-11-06 14:33:18 UTC
Johnny Marzetti wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

4. As for my running anoms in null, lol. I'm doing that to fund my 8 man stealth bomber wing, which will be coming to a VFK near you shortly.


Harry Forever has already demonstrated that you only need one bomber to tilt at windmills in Deklein.

Harry and I and my little squad will make a good team then.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#359 - 2013-11-06 15:40:02 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Shalua Rui wrote:

According to whom? Not everybody likes to get in trouble all the time...


Then why aren't they sitting on the porch doing crochet instead of playing a conflict driven MMO about space ships (most of which can mount copious amounts of guns)?
You realise that this game isn't only about the guns though right? There are several activities that in fact require no guns.
I'm not opposed to ganking, I've done it myself on several occasions, but it is too easy to do and with no realistic downsides. Your neg sec status does not stop you doing much and can be corrected to a livable level with only a couple of hundred mil.
I think ganking needs to be severely cut back, but at the same time there should be more of a reason to go out to low, null and WH space by increasing reward and decreasing high sec reward. High sec can generate the same level of income as null with relative ease, which is wrong. But at the same time high sec can be as dangerous as null, which again is wrong.
Both sides need to be looked at and balanced to what they are designed to be.

IMO, Null needs more rewards and higher risk (harder hitting PVE at the very least, scrambling belt rats, etc).
High needs more safety and less reward.
WH space needs ice, so self-sustaining is easier, and higher risk+reward
Low sec needs to have reduced risk to players forcing unwanted PvP (so removal of gate ad station guns, etc) and more exploration rewards.

This would encourage people to live in WHs, to explore low sec with the risk of being hunted, to group in null, and to safely pick up dregs in high sec. For me, that's what the 4 sections of space are supposed to do.


I simply don't understand the kind of personality that looks at my post and says "you think it's all about guns"?

Where, exactly did i say any such thing. I said EVE HAS guns. Try reading a post without the "crazy colored" glasses, if you don;t understand what I'm saying, ask me instead of making a stupid assumption.

"most of which can mount copious amounts of guns"
It would be that bit there. Most of it doesn't mount to copious amounts of guns. I run 8 accounts, with 3 chars on each and yet I only have 4 characters even trained with weapons at all.


You're just not very smart. The problem with "not smart" people is that they never understand how not smart they are.

You drew the wrong copncluclsions from a post writen in plain english. if you want to keep doing that, that's you choice, but that choise is stupid.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#360 - 2013-11-06 15:40:55 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
They'll never cease to exist because people are people. Some peopel choose to see only those things that they want to while ignoring the rest, thinking that if "only those other things go away, things will be perfect". In this game as in real life, they are wrong.
Do you not see anything hypocritical in this at all?
Gankers are now considerably more common than when I started. So technically, the "carebears" actually want the game to stay the way it originally was. Sounds to me like you just want the easy kills. I personally enjoy EVE for support a broad spectrum of playstyles. If the whole game turned into pure pew pew, you can bet your ass my accounts would shut down.



And then even more dumb. WTF is wrong with you?