These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Josef Djugashvilis
#241 - 2014-04-18 18:03:28 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Nerfing highsec will solve so many terrible problems.


Of course it would sweetie, not least the load on the servers as there would be less folk playing the game.

Hi-sec is as valid a part of the game as whatever part of it you play in.

The one thing I have never got used to in this game is folk behaving like kids wanting others to play their way or no way.



When all you babbys who throw tantrums and threaten to quit after every change/potential highsec nerf finally leave it will be a better game. It will be less toxic and so much better EVE will have massive growth.

Start nerfing highsec now and never stop.


Lordy, you are still doing the tough guy act.

I spend the vast majority of my time in lo-sec.

Effectively wrecking hi-sec would, in my opinion, be financial suicide for CCP.

Oh, and you need to keep up with the latest goon forum crib sheet, 'babby' is now old hat as a goon insult.

This is not a signature.
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
#242 - 2014-04-18 18:11:48 UTC
leavemymomalone idiot wrote:
DJentropy Ovaert wrote:
OP should show us on the shapeship doll where the catalysts touched her


heheheh im the one doing the touching. im neither butthurt or moaning. as ive said in past posts i personally would NOT be interested in going to ultra-sec. my place is floating about incursions in my blackbird locking and jamming logis at the worst possible time.

all i am saying is give the risk adverse a place to play, not everyone who plays eve wants to spoil another pilots day.

anyway from what ive read most of the noise is coming from pilots who seem to think that they will be worse off? why is that? could it be because most of the kills they get are from risk adverse carebears who die because they didnt fit a proper tank or stayed aligned or used Dscan

as i said before you want to make eve easier, easy kills lots of soft targets who wont shoot back.

do you see ultra-sec as a place where all your easy kills will hide?

do you think that ultra-sec will be full to cap with players?

you shout precisely because you know that getting kills will be harder and you dont want that. you want to make it even easier to kill pilots than it is already.



Stop selectively reading the thread. It's not a bad idea because "we need to stroke our egos by killing carebears" (I think everyone agrees that highsec PvPers are the most tedius bunch of people in the world), it's a bad idea because it would completely unbalance the game.

If I'm reading the proposal correctly, the idea is some sort of playground for miners, missioners, explorers, etc., who want to "play the game" and not have to worry about any player-driven risk. Well, like I said above, by all means go for it . . . but it has to remain consistent. That means you can carebear your mining hearts out, but don't expect to sell your minerals to anyone who is producing ships for the part of the universe where ships are actually at risk. Likewise, mission to your hearts content - just don't expect any of the bling that comes from those parts of space where the risk is actually real.

It's absurd, of course - you thinking that this would actually work. In isolation, this little zone would atrophy and die within a year as miners realized that mining makes no sense when no ships are blowing up, missioners see just how stupid it is to mission purely for the sake of missioning, and the market completely collapses in a purely supply-side economy.

I am not an alt of Chribba.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#243 - 2014-04-18 18:13:02 UTC
With the current existence of High Security, a system meant to deter people from attacking others by imposing consequence of ship loss, or demanding an upfront monetary payment system to grant a limited time period of attempted attacking against specific corporations, it's fairly obvious that CCP wishes to hold all styles of gamer within their sandbox.

If CCP didn't want high sec to exist, and for all of EVE to be a battleground where killing happens constantly, which is obviously not the case, then it wouldn't. In fact, if EvE wanted everyone to be killable at anytime, anywhere, you could assassinate people who have docked up, and somehow sabotage/explode ships people have docked in hangars. If the philosophy of kill anyone, anytime was truly the intention of CCP, then high sec wouldn't exist and in station killings and ship destruction could occur.

Because it's incredibly obvious through CCP's actions that EvE wishes to be a home for all people, it's only natural to consider that in the vein of fairness, some systems where no one can be attacked should exist. Areas of space exist where everyone can be attacked, which mean's the opposite needs to exist, an area of space where no one can be attacked should exist.

Of course, only if CCP's intention is to be fair in it's attempt to offer playgrounds to all potentially desired aspects of gameplay. To be fair, if CCP has created space where anyone and everyone can be attacked, then CCP should create space where no one and no one can be attacked.
Cassandra Aurilien
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#244 - 2014-04-18 18:18:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Cassandra Aurilien
Divine Entervention wrote:
With the current existence of High Security, a system meant to deter people from attacking others by imposing consequence of ship loss, or demanding an upfront monetary payment system to grant a limited time period of attempted attacking against specific corporations, it's fairly obvious that CCP wishes to hold all styles of gamer within their sandbox.

If CCP didn't want high sec to exist, and for all of EVE to be a battleground where killing happens constantly, which is obviously not the case, then it wouldn't. In fact, if EvE wanted everyone to be killable at anytime, anywhere, you could assassinate people who have docked up, and somehow sabotage/explode ships people have docked in hangars. If the philosophy of kill anyone, anytime was truly the intention of CCP, then high sec wouldn't exist and in station killings and ship destruction could occur.

Because it's incredibly obvious through CCP's actions that EvE wishes to be a home for all people, it's only natural to consider that in the vein of fairness, some systems where no one can be attacked should exist. Areas of space exist where everyone can be attacked, which mean's the opposite needs to exist, an area of space where no one can be attacked should exist.

Of course, only if CCP's intention is to be fair in it's attempt to offer playgrounds to all potentially desired aspects of gameplay. To be fair, if CCP has created space where anyone and everyone can be attacked, then CCP should create space where no one and no one can be attacked.


Actually, if you read CCP's writing on EVE, they have always stressed that there is no such thing as absolute safety in EVE. Much of their documentation repeats it several times, I believe.

I can dig up examples, if you like. It wouldn't take more than a few minutes.

Edit: From the New Players Guide on the Wiki - "EVE has no set side, you are safe from no one. They can attack you


anywhere, anytime, for any reason."
James Nikolas Tesla
Tesla Holdings
#245 - 2014-04-18 18:18:54 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.

Almost impossible to gank in these areas. i say almost, but i mean NEVER.

everyone is banging on about getting more players into the game, welll...this post is directed to all the risk adverse pilots who want to carebear without worry. knowing that gankers and griefers cannot operate as they do now in normal hisec..


i am certain that an area of ultra-sec would be stuffed with pilots every day. and the forums filled with the raised voices of all those pvp pilots who want more access to victims to fatten up killlboards and being denied. let the tears of frustration flow.


nerf hisec ? no i say make ultra sec.

what do you think?

I'm a HiSec Carebear and I think the only way to make this acceptable is to make the ISK rates so abysmally low that 'ultra-sec' would only serve as a newbie training ground.

CODE is just a bunch of pirates; smart, organized pirates. It doesn't help to rage at them because that is exactly what they want. Dust yourself off and get back on your feet, you don't even have to talk to them.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#246 - 2014-04-18 18:20:56 UTC
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:


Actually, if you read CCP's writing on EVE, they have always stressed that there is no such thing as absolute safety in EVE. Much of their documentation repeats it several times, I believe.

I can dig up examples, if you like. It wouldn't take more than a few minutes.


Sure, pull it up. I'm not against additional reading.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#247 - 2014-04-18 18:23:37 UTC
James Nikolas Tesla wrote:

I'm a HiSec Carebear and I think the only way to make this acceptable is to make the ISK rates so abysmally low that 'ultra-sec' would only serve as a newbie training ground.


Nice this is what I'm talking about. Actual conversation rather than flaming people and condemning them simply for having a different opinion.

What do you feel should be the maximum amount of ISK per hour one could obtain within an Ultra-Sec system? Under a best case scenario for the grinder.
Cassandra Aurilien
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#248 - 2014-04-18 18:26:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Cassandra Aurilien
Divine Entervention wrote:
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:


Actually, if you read CCP's writing on EVE, they have always stressed that there is no such thing as absolute safety in EVE. Much of their documentation repeats it several times, I believe.

I can dig up examples, if you like. It wouldn't take more than a few minutes.


Sure, pull it up. I'm not against additional reading.


Here... From CCP's you-tube. The Devs. Big smile

http://youtu.be/VgvM7av1o1Q

Edit: Had to add a smile.
Cassandra Aurilien
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#249 - 2014-04-18 18:34:25 UTC
And if you didn't catch my edit of my previous post... From the New player guide on the official EVE wiki:

"EVE has no set side, you are safe from no one. They can attack you anywhere, anytime, for any reason." "... in the

1.0 security space that you start off in, you are pretty safe. "

Note that they say "pretty safe", not 100% safe. I could find other examples, if you wish.
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association
#250 - 2014-04-18 18:36:51 UTC
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:

Back when I was two or three months old (two years ago), I manufactured every T1 battleship with minerals I mined myself... It was a little personal goal of mine.


I've been doing that for... over ten years now. Including the faction battleships. and cap ships.

Cassandra Aurilien wrote:

With no pvp losses, inflation in that little pocket would be unbelievable. 2-3 months of mining & a player would have all the minerals they'd need for ever... I don't think you'd be able to sell much of anything, honestly.


That results in deflation, not inflation. The isk would buy more because supply outpaces demand and the value of the isk relative to the goods it buys increases. A flooded market equals prices going down, not up. In Inflation, the cost of goods increases. as the individual isk buys less and less.

At the moment eve in general is grappling with rampant inflation, brought on by the increase in the price of mins and the increase in the amount of minerals required to build a given thing. This in turn leads to a higher prices for finished goods and the isk having less purchasing power.

CCP seems to be trying to increase the number of isk sinks, thinking that reducing the amount of isk in the system is the best way to deal with it. However, this won't work, as it does not address the underlaying issue, and, in fact, will likely drive prices even higher as industrialists attempt to compensate for increased cost by raising prices.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#251 - 2014-04-18 18:38:42 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:

Lordy, you are still doing the tough guy act.

I spend the vast majority of my time in lo-sec.

Effectively wrecking hi-sec would, in my opinion, be financial suicide for CCP.

Oh, and you need to keep up with the latest goon forum crib sheet, 'babby' is now old hat as a goon insult.


No I'm just taking the Malcanis route and not suffering any stupidity when it comes to this. Nerfing highsec is good for the game.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#252 - 2014-04-18 18:41:05 UTC
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:
And if you didn't catch my edit of my previous post... From the New player guide on the official EVE wiki:

"EVE has no set side, you are safe from no one. They can attack you anywhere, anytime, for any reason." "... in the

1.0 security space that you start off in, you are pretty safe. "

Note that they say "pretty safe", not 100% safe. I could find other examples, if you wish.



And even though those sentences exist, with the introduction of an "ultra-sec", they could be changed to say "the only space you cannot be attacked is in Ultra-Sec".
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#253 - 2014-04-18 18:42:21 UTC
La Nariz wrote:


No I'm just taking the Malcanis route and not suffering any stupidity when it comes to this. Nerfing highsec is good for the game.


Only an opinion.
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
#254 - 2014-04-18 18:44:13 UTC
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:

Back when I was two or three months old (two years ago), I manufactured every T1 battleship with minerals I mined myself... It was a little personal goal of mine.


I've been doing that for... over ten years now. Including the faction battleships. and cap ships.

Cassandra Aurilien wrote:

With no pvp losses, inflation in that little pocket would be unbelievable. 2-3 months of mining & a player would have all the minerals they'd need for ever... I don't think you'd be able to sell much of anything, honestly.


That results in deflation, not inflation. The isk would buy more because supply outpaces demand and the value of the isk relative to the goods it buys increases. A flooded market equals prices going down, not up. In Inflation, the cost of goods increases. as the individual isk buys less and less.

At the moment eve in general is grappling with rampant inflation, brought on by the increase in the price of mins and the increase in the amount of minerals required to build a given thing. This in turn leads to a higher prices for finished goods and the isk having less purchasing power.

CCP seems to be trying to increase the number of isk sinks, thinking that reducing the amount of isk in the system is the best way to deal with it. However, this won't work, as it does not address the underlaying issue, and, in fact, will likely drive prices even higher as industrialists attempt to compensate for increased cost by raising prices.


No, inflation is in fact the right concept, because people are still missioning like mad - with nothing to spend their money on. Minerals would just be . . . useless.

I am not an alt of Chribba.
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
#255 - 2014-04-18 18:45:38 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:
La Nariz wrote:


No I'm just taking the Malcanis route and not suffering any stupidity when it comes to this. Nerfing highsec is good for the game.


Only an opinion.


Dude, you should really remove that sig . . . it's like a full on advertisement that you are a troll.

I will admit, I read the whole thread laughing.

I am not an alt of Chribba.
Cassandra Aurilien
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#256 - 2014-04-18 18:48:22 UTC
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:

Back when I was two or three months old (two years ago), I manufactured every T1 battleship with minerals I mined myself... It was a little personal goal of mine.


I've been doing that for... over ten years now. Including the faction battleships. and cap ships.

Cassandra Aurilien wrote:

With no pvp losses, inflation in that little pocket would be unbelievable. 2-3 months of mining & a player would have all the minerals they'd need for ever... I don't think you'd be able to sell much of anything, honestly.


That results in deflation, not inflation. The isk would buy more because supply outpaces demand and the value of the isk relative to the goods it buys increases. A flooded market equals prices going down, not up. In Inflation, the cost of goods increases. as the individual isk buys less and less.

At the moment eve in general is grappling with rampant inflation, brought on by the increase in the price of mins and the increase in the amount of minerals required to build a given thing. This in turn leads to a higher prices for finished goods and the isk having less purchasing power.

CCP seems to be trying to increase the number of isk sinks, thinking that reducing the amount of isk in the system is the best way to deal with it. However, this won't work, as it does not address the underlaying issue, and, in fact, will likely drive prices even higher as industrialists attempt to compensate for increased cost by raising prices.


There would be a glut of both ISK & materials. There wouldn't be a market. That's the point. Massive oversupply + Massive abundance of funds = Economic insanity. I've been in games which had that situation before. Prices tend to go up. In real life, it's completely different, but when your in game industrialist gets one sale a month, he's probably not going to price it cheaply, knowing that missioners are rolling in ISK. T2 modules (which require extra effort) would be what I'd expect to catch the premium, ships might stay cheap.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#257 - 2014-04-18 18:51:12 UTC
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog wrote:

Dude, you should really remove that sig . . . it's like a full on advertisement that you are a troll.

I will admit, I read the whole thread laughing.


Anti-Troll. But they're pretty similar, so I understand the misconception. Anti-Trolls intentions are to identify and shut down the actual trolls while maintaining thread integrity.
Cassandra Aurilien
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#258 - 2014-04-18 18:54:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Cassandra Aurilien
Divine Entervention wrote:
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:
And if you didn't catch my edit of my previous post... From the New player guide on the official EVE wiki:

"EVE has no set side, you are safe from no one. They can attack you anywhere, anytime, for any reason." "... in the

1.0 security space that you start off in, you are pretty safe. "

Note that they say "pretty safe", not 100% safe. I could find other examples, if you wish.



And even though those sentences exist, with the introduction of an "ultra-sec", they could be changed to say "the only space you cannot be attacked is in Ultra-Sec".


Your claim was that CCP believed that there should exist an area of space that was completely free from pvp. That wiki entry directly contradicts that claim.

You are offering a hypothetical, which technically would in all probability be true, that if CCP created a no pvp zone, then they would believe that a no pvp zone should be created. As they have not created such a zone, that opinion is not material to the current conditions which exist in this particular EVE universe. In some parallel reality, where this zone has been created, I would admit that your statement would be true. However, multiple universes where all things are true aside, in this current reality, it is not.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#259 - 2014-04-18 18:54:44 UTC
Divine Entervention wrote:
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:
And if you didn't catch my edit of my previous post... From the New player guide on the official EVE wiki:

"EVE has no set side, you are safe from no one. They can attack you anywhere, anytime, for any reason." "... in the

1.0 security space that you start off in, you are pretty safe. "

Note that they say "pretty safe", not 100% safe. I could find other examples, if you wish.



And even though those sentences exist, with the introduction of an "ultra-sec", they could be changed to say "the only space you cannot be attacked is in Ultra-Sec".
Which will never happen. Big smile

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Divine Entervention
Doomheim
#260 - 2014-04-18 19:00:09 UTC
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:
And if you didn't catch my edit of my previous post... From the New player guide on the official EVE wiki:

"EVE has no set side, you are safe from no one. They can attack you anywhere, anytime, for any reason." "... in the

1.0 security space that you start off in, you are pretty safe. "

Note that they say "pretty safe", not 100% safe. I could find other examples, if you wish.



And even though those sentences exist, with the introduction of an "ultra-sec", they could be changed to say "the only space you cannot be attacked is in Ultra-Sec".


Your claim was that CCP believed that there should exist an area of space that was completely free from pvp. That wiki entry directly contradicts that claim.

You are offering a hypothetical, which technically would in all probably be true, that if CCP created a no pvp zone, then they would believe that a no pvp zone should be created. As they have not created such a zone, that opinion is not material to the current conditions which exist in this particular EVE universe. In some parallel reality, where this zone has been created, I would admit that your statement would be true. However, multiple universes where all things are true aside, in this current reality, it is not.


Which is why the discussion about the creation and implementation of an Ultra-Sec is taking place. Because something does not exist already, does not mean it never will, and never should. If that were the case, all EvE development would stop. All technological research and invention in the world would cease. Alas, this is not a world where we're content with the status-quo. Companies are competing, inventing new ways, methods, and technologies to gain advantages over others. CCP itself is continuing to change and develop EvE, which means we're justified to discuss the potential of change which could be desired by many people.

Using the basis of "it can't exist because it doesn't exist" is a fallacy because if that were the case, computers themselves wouldn't exist because at one point they did not.