These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

NERF Hisec?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tesco Ergo Sum
#81 - 2014-04-17 20:33:39 UTC
We have this already, BlueSec.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#82 - 2014-04-17 20:38:10 UTC
Erufen Rito wrote:
says who? I don't agree with this motion.
Says a decade worth of failed attempts to find a solution that works. How would you design in a non-combat zone that doesn't give a distinct advantage over the combat-allowed zones in terms of being able to stuff without interruption or distraction?


Quote:
Actually, the design of eve relies on all forms of player interaction.
…which is why it's a bad idea to arbitrarily disallow key components of that design.

Quote:
Lastly, if you want to use SiSi as an escapegoat, let me remind you that the isk you generate in systems where PvP isn't allowed can get you stuff to use in the system where PvP is allower, shitting all over your reciprocity farce.

“Escapegoat”?
No, it doesn't affect reciprocity in any way because it happens on sisi. It has absolutely no effect on TQ and, in the long run, it has no effect on sisi either. The entire system is designed around doing exactly what you're describing, no to mention that it's actually easier to generate the same ISK in the PvP systems.
Erufen Rito
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#83 - 2014-04-17 20:38:34 UTC
Tippia wrote:


Erufen Rito wrote:
First things first. Your opinion is not fact.
…and I've never claimed that it is — DE tends to equate the two very often, though.

Quote:
it is my opinion that the game doesn't work the way you think it does
Can you provide an example of one player being able to affect the game state of someone else, but that other player not having the ability to affect the first player right back?

Quote:
In regards to the reciprosity bit: says who? […]
Lastly, about your comment on agents and isk: says who?
In the first instance, says the game mechanics. At any time I want, I can try to alter your game state using any method of my choosing. At any time you want, you can try to alter my game state using any method of your choosing. I am not arbitrarily barred from affecting you while you are still given full freedom to affect me. I really could just be flippant and say “the sandbox” here, but I suspect you wouldn't accept it as an answer. Blink

As for the second part, says the game mechanics. It's what agents do: inject ISK into the economy. I come to the conclusion that they wouldn't be allowed based on the notion that it would let you affect my gamestate but I would be arbitrarily barred from affecting yours. Scamming would also be barred, due to there being no market interaction in these systems.

Offgrid boosters, for your example.

And I find interesting that you think that because you can't destroy my assets, then you can't scamm me out if them, or create a margin scamm. I'm not sure how agents in the existing, protected systems are affecting your game state. I know mine isn't being affected by them.

This is as nice as I get. Best quote ever https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4137165#post4137165
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#84 - 2014-04-17 20:41:50 UTC
BrundleMeth wrote:
While I thik it's a stupid idea, I don't believe your statement means it's an absolute. In other words because it IS a multiplayer sandbox, EVERYTHING should be possible...

That's not really what a multiplayer sandbox entails, though. To use the old cliché: multiplayer sandbox does not mean you can do what you want; it means everyone can do what they want, which includes doing stuff to you that you don't want them to do.

In fact, I'd argue that a multiplayer sandbox inherently can't make everything possible because it is inherently contradictory — some things would require a single-player mode to work, and thus we arrive at the notion that what the OP is asking would essentially mean developing a parallel game.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#85 - 2014-04-17 20:42:07 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:


[quote]What happens now?

What happens is that you've introduced godmode in a multiplayer PvP game. It doesn't really matter if some of your actions are curtailed at that point — you're still using godmode, which will quickly turn into an abuse of said godmode.

Do you know why godmode is generally not allowed in PvP?



God Mode is not used in PvP because it gives the players with it an unfair advantage over those without.
How would Ultra-Sec be considered "God Mode"? Everyone in Ultra Sec space would have "God Mode" so there would be no potential for it to give an advantage over someone without, because everyone within would be receiving the applied invulnerability.

If you consider "God Mode" the ability to not be attacked, then being docked in a station is God Mode since you cannot be attacked, and it already exists within EvE.
Erufen Rito
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#86 - 2014-04-17 20:44:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Erufen Rito
Tippia wrote:
Erufen Rito wrote:
says who? I don't agree with this motion.
Says a decade worth of failed attempts to find a solution that works. How would you design in a non-combat zone that doesn't give a distinct advantage over the combat-allowed zones in terms of being able to stuff without interruption or distraction?


Quote:
Actually, the design of eve relies on all forms of player interaction.
…which is why it's a bad idea to arbitrarily disallow key components of that design.

Quote:
Lastly, if you want to use SiSi as an escapegoat, let me remind you that the isk you generate in systems where PvP isn't allowed can get you stuff to use in the system where PvP is allower, shitting all over your reciprocity farce.

“Escapegoat”?
No, it doesn't affect reciprocity in any way because it happens on sisi. It has absolutely no effect on TQ and, in the long run, it has no effect on sisi either. The entire system is designed around doing exactly what you're describing, no to mention that it's actually easier to generate the same ISK in the PvP systems.

See, when you say "if you want ABC, then go to X because its basically ABC" you are offering it as a solution to what the op addressed. Or as math would put it ABC=X. You basically said that the way sisi handles PvP would work as an implementation of the OP in TQ. I find this to be conflicting with everything else you've said thus far.

Also "gamestate"? I'm sorry that the voice recognition on my phone types weird stuff from time to time. Actually, I'm not. Its pretty sweet.

This is as nice as I get. Best quote ever https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4137165#post4137165
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#87 - 2014-04-17 20:50:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Erufen Rito wrote:
Offgrid boosters, for your example.
You mean as an example of non-reciprocity? No, I can affect your game-state right back.

Quote:
And I find interesting that you think that because you can't destroy my assets, then you can't scamm me out if them, or create a margin scamm.
I could do that, but those are not the method of my choosing. It could even be the case that destroying your assets is literally the only option available to me because I don't have the skills, skillz, or stuff to do anything else. The arbitrary restriction of not being able to blow you up has thus unbalanced the ability to interact.

Quote:
I'm not sure how agents in the existing, protected systems are affecting your game state. I know mine isn't being affected by them.
What existing systems are those?
And you believe it isn't. In reality, your game state — in fact everyone's game state — is being affected by all the ISK and LP being injected into the economy, which is a universal system that spans the entire game.

Divine Entervention wrote:
God Mode is not used in PvP because it gives the players with it an unfair advantage against those without.
How would Ultra-Sec be considered "God Mode"?
You mean aside from sharing with godmode the characteristic of not being killable? And it provides the same unfair advantage against those who do not have that godmode — the ones who are not in the system, but which you can still affect from within that secure bubble.

Quote:
Everyone in Ultra Sec space would have "God Mode" so there would be no potential for it to give an advantage over someone without, because everyone within would be receiving the applied invulnerability.
Congratulations, you have just described why it would have to be a separate system that is decoupled from the rest of the game.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#88 - 2014-04-17 20:55:41 UTC
Erufen Rito wrote:
See, when you say "if you want ABC, then go to X because its basically ABC" you are offering it as a solution to what the op addressed. Or as math would put it ABC=X. You basically said that the way sisi handles PvP would work as an implementation of the OP in TQ. I find this to be conflicting with everything else you've said thus far.
It would also thoroughly break the game. EVE on TQ is a vastly different game from EVE on Sisi. It fits rather well with what I've said thus fare, namely that we are now talking about a completely different game.

Quote:
Also "gamestate"? I'm sorry that the voice recognition on my phone types weird stuff from time to time. Actually, I'm not. Its pretty sweet.
Ah, that explains things. At least it isn't obviously evil and out to make a fool of you and post profanities to your acquaintances in the manner of autocorrect. Twisted
Erufen Rito
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#89 - 2014-04-17 20:56:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Erufen Rito
Tippia wrote:
Erufen Rito wrote:
Offgrid boosters, for your example.
You mean as an example of non-reciprocity? No, I can affect your game-state right back.

Quote:
And I find interesting that you think that because you can't destroy my assets, then you can't scamm me out if them, or create a margin scamm.
I could do that, but those are not the method of my choosing. It could even be the case that destroying your assets is literally the only option available to me because I don't have the skills, skillz, or stuff to do anything else. The arbitrary restriction of not being able to blow you up has thus unbalanced the ability to interact.

Quote:
I'm not sure how agents in the existing, protected systems are affecting your game state. I know mine isn't being affected by them.
What existing systems are those?
And you believe it isn't. In reality, your game state — in fact everyone's game state — is being affected by all the ISK and LP being injected into the economy, which is a universal system that spans the entire game.

You can't touch an off grid booster directly. You have to bring the POS down first.

Now, why would an entire system be based on what you are capable or incapable of doing? You can't scam your way around? How is that my problem?

Also, as stated before, rookie systems are protected systems. In a way. And no. I know they don't affect me, at all. See, because only I know my game habits, I can factually say that it doesn't affect me at all.

This is as nice as I get. Best quote ever https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4137165#post4137165
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#90 - 2014-04-17 20:57:05 UTC
Tippia wrote:
leavemymomalone idiot wrote:
i would have agreed with you if you stopped there but you didnt so i have to disagree.
but thank you for posting
Then you can forget about your idea.

Either you remove all PvP and all reasons for PvP from an area, or you allow all PvP. You don't get to do PvP or competitive activities in an environment where others are not allowed to PvP or compete back. It just doesn't work that way.

If you want PvP gone, all the things on the list (and probably a few more that I have missed) will have to go.

noone actually asks for 'remove all pvp'

usually people only request removing ship-to-ship pvp. all other kinds of pvp almost never get negative attention

and yes, it's totally possible

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#91 - 2014-04-17 21:00:28 UTC
Erufen Rito wrote:
You can't touch an off grid booster directly. You have to bring the POS down first.
OGBs can't operate inside POSes any more. Well, maybe mining boosters can, but meh… I'll just blow up your mining fleet instead to render the booster meaningless. P

Quote:
Now, why would an entire system be based on what you are capable or incapable of doing? You can't scam your way around? How is that my problem?
It's not your problem. It's a problem with game balance: you are able to affect me, but I'm barred from affecting you back.

Quote:
Also, as stated before, rookie systems are protected systems. In a way.
In a way that makes a huge difference. I'm not actually barred from doing anything — I'm just being slapped very very hard if I use my freedom to interfere with the learning process of new players.
Erufen Rito
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#92 - 2014-04-17 21:06:14 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Erufen Rito wrote:
You can't touch an off grid booster directly. You have to bring the POS down first.
OGBs can't operate inside POSes any more. Well, maybe mining boosters can, but meh… I'll just blow up your mining fleet instead to render the booster meaningless. P

Quote:
Now, why would an entire system be based on what you are capable or incapable of doing? You can't scam your way around? How is that my problem?
It's not your problem. It's a problem with game balance: you are able to affect me, but I'm barred from affecting you back.

Quote:
Also, as stated before, rookie systems are protected systems. In a way.
In a way that makes a huge difference. I'm not actually barred from doing anything — I'm just being slapped very very hard if I use my freedom to interfere with the learning process of new players.

Well, in this case I'm the booster, and you haven't changed my afk boosting state by blowing up the mining fleet.

Also, you aren't barred from affecting me. You are just unwilling to use the theorically available methods.

And if you are a repeat offender on rookie systems, you get hung out to dry.

Now, I did say that the op is the stupidest thing yet, so don't get me wrong. All I'm saying here is that your perception of the game mechanics is going a bit over the top in regards to this **** idea.

This is as nice as I get. Best quote ever https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4137165#post4137165
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#93 - 2014-04-17 21:09:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Divine Entervention
Tippia wrote:


Divine Entervention wrote:
God Mode is not used in PvP because it gives the players with it an unfair advantage against those without.
How would Ultra-Sec be considered "God Mode"?
You mean aside from sharing with godmode the characteristic of not being killable? And it provides the same unfair advantage against those who do not have that godmode — the ones who are not in the system, but which you can still affect from within that secure bubble.

Quote:
Everyone in Ultra Sec space would have "God Mode" so there would be no potential for it to give an advantage over someone without, because everyone within would be receiving the applied invulnerability.
Congratulations, you have just described why it would have to be a separate system that is decoupled from the rest of the game.


Yet according to you, everyone can assume "God Mode" by simply docking in a station. Everyone has the option to "God Mode" by docking, just like everyone would have the option to "God Mode" by entering the Ultra-Sec system. Also, If I'm 40 jumps away from you in High Sec while you're in Low Sec, because we're in different systems, I can't attack you. It doesn't matter if my being in ultra sec makes me invulnerable while your being in null sec makes you vulnerable, because between us, in different systems, we couldn't attack each other anyways.

And just as High Sec is decoupled from Low Sec and Null Sec, Ultra Sec would be decoupled from High sec and others as well.
All of this exists already.

This isn't even hard man, it almost feels like I'm kicking a guy who cant fight back. Please do better.
Cassandra Aurilien
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#94 - 2014-04-17 21:38:38 UTC
If someone was foolish enough to create this... It needs to have Bandine & Chondrite ores only. You can mine those to your heart's content.

No missions, no rats, no stations. No agents, either. I might support this then.

Divine - Low & Null are not decoupled from High sec. Many of the fancy deadspace modules that high-sec missioners love come from low and null (and all officer modules), as do much of the high end minerals for all ships.
Adunh Slavy
#95 - 2014-04-17 21:45:04 UTC
leavemymomalone idiot wrote:
how about CCP making an area of space where it is actually SAFE, where any aggression like locking up a ship or bumping results in ship and pod being destroyed..a super safe hisec ultra sec if you will.



No. Now go make an alt, buy a frig and go shoot something, in high sec.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#96 - 2014-04-17 21:51:22 UTC
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:


Divine - Low & Null are not decoupled from High sec. Many of the fancy deadspace modules that high-sec missioners love come from low and null (and all officer modules), as do much of the high end minerals for all ships.


And with Veldspar, Scordite, Level 2 mission rewards/bounties, and modules earned from ratting/missioning, Ultra-sec would still be connected to the entirety of EvE.
Cassandra Aurilien
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#97 - 2014-04-17 21:57:14 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:


Divine - Low & Null are not decoupled from High sec. Many of the fancy deadspace modules that high-sec missioners love come from low and null (and all officer modules), as do much of the high end minerals for all ships.


And with Veldspar, Scordite, Level 2 mission rewards/bounties, and modules earned from ratting/missioning, Ultra-sec would still be connected to the entirety of EvE.


That is why none of that can be there. 0 risk = 0 reward.

I wouldn't honestly be bothered if the new player stations were set up that way, with non-repeatable missions, as they have now. Get rid of the belts & give them mission deadspaces for mining, when the missions require minerals. That would also get the multiboxing miners who are most definitely not new players out of the rookie systems.
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#98 - 2014-04-17 22:00:01 UTC
Tesco Ergo Sum wrote:
We have this already, BlueSec.

It should be noted that "BlueSec", unlike Hi-sec, is entirely driven by players. It's actually an interesting case-study for what would happen if concord was removed from hi-sec.

Just a thought...
CompleteFailure
DAWGS Corp.
SL0W CHILDREN AT PLAY
#99 - 2014-04-17 22:00:30 UTC
leavemymomalone idiot wrote:

explain to me why the risk adverse are not allowed their own place?


Because Eve is a risk vs. reward game. No risk = no reward. Period.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#100 - 2014-04-17 22:07:24 UTC
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:


Divine - Low & Null are not decoupled from High sec. Many of the fancy deadspace modules that high-sec missioners love come from low and null (and all officer modules), as do much of the high end minerals for all ships.


And with Veldspar, Scordite, Level 2 mission rewards/bounties, and modules earned from ratting/missioning, Ultra-sec would still be connected to the entirety of EvE.


That is why none of that can be there. 0 risk = 0 reward.


How is there zero risk? The player could lose his ship to an NPC. People will claim dudes only lose their ships in high sec because they failed to take the necessary precautions.

Which means that as long as something can still kill a ship, even an NPC and not a player, then there is still risk for the players to take precautions to avoid.

It was never suggested to have a "can't die" zone.
It was suggested to have a "cant be attacked by other players" zone. Simply changing a few 1.0 security systems to "ultra-sec" and removing all level 3+ missions from the systems converted to "ultra-sec" could address the possibilities surrounding it's implementation.