These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

PVE? NO,only PVC(CCP).Maybe I should leave EVE too
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#181 - 2014-07-28 03:57:30 UTC
Quote:
I used to be an explorer, then you make the scanning/hacking harder



You mean when you had to fly to the location and drop each probe individually? Yeah that was way easier. I had to point that out because it seemed really trollish, but I think you were being serious.

As far as income getting nerfed, yeah, it happens. But you seem like you want 2 things at the same time that are very contradictory to each other; to be RP'ing and min/maxing.

I have tried to see how much income over time I could make at just about everything I did in Eve. But in the end it comes down to what you like doing.

If you want to PvE in large numbers and make huge income try Incursions I guess.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#182 - 2014-07-28 04:26:38 UTC
Arcelian wrote:


I said, like, 4 pages back that null sec is made safer by player mitigation, and all things equal, solo pilot to solo pilot, yes, null sec is more risky. But that's not the way null sec actually, is, and hasn't been for a number of years.

Tippia, I've made my point very clear, I'm not going to split hairs with you. I don't have 23k likes, I don't live on these forums.

By definition, yes null sec is more risky than high sec, by many magnitudes.

I was arguing from the point of the average null dweller, that lives there today, who uses the tools available to him. You know, how null sec actually is.


So why does CCPs own numbers and graphs show that a lot more ships get blown up in null?

Hell in January we saw a single null system suffer more destruction in a day than all of highsec combined for the entire month.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#183 - 2014-07-28 04:36:39 UTC
polly papercut wrote:

The top 10% of wow pvp players are very skilled gamers. And the whole risk in eve In losing a ship. Most people do not risk more than a couple hundred million if that on pvp. Something you can make up for in 5 seconds by buying a plex. Or just a few hours of ratting.


Feel free to grind up the isk for this



polly papercut wrote:

I play fighting games on a competitive level also have been ranked in bf 3 and 4. And I got a few friends in mlg. Those players are much more hard core gamers than most eve players.


Tell us more about how shooting someone in the face in battlefield is "more hardcore" than organizing thousands of people into fleets and providing the logistics, funding and tactics for a campaign lasting months.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#184 - 2014-07-28 09:59:38 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Peaceful Makbema wrote:
CCP, you said it is a free game belongs to everyone, right? Everyone can Role-Play a character in the sandbox, right?
So, a high-sec civilian shouldn't be discriminated, right? But what you have done?
I used to be a loyalist, then you nerfed highsecs mission and LP value
I used to be a trader, then you chanced market rules
I used to be an explorer, then you make the scanning/hacking harder
Finally I think being a miner/manufacturer should make a peaceful life, then you rebuild the whole industry.
Ehm… could you please elaborate a bit on those because some of them don't seem very familiar and none of them really seem to qualify as “nerfing highsec again and again”.

Missions haven't been nerfed since long before you joined. If anything, more has been added, especially when it comes to LP value.
The market rules are the same as ever.
Scanning and hacking have become a lot easier.
The rebuilding of industry is a huge buff to everyone involved.

And how do any of these discriminate against “high-sec civilians” when none of them have anything to do with highsec?



I think he was referign to the nerf to mission loot drops. Used to be worth a good money and now is garbage.

High sec had some minors nerfs, but not made to be nerfs. THey were made to close loopholes int he game that created problems to balance the rest.

On the LP value I think he means, the introduction of FW that made the value of LP drop a lot.


Well all that was coutnered by the most massive income buff to high sec. Incursions.... while not perfect, is more fun than lelve 4's and make more isk

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#185 - 2014-07-28 10:01:47 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
polly papercut wrote:

The top 10% of wow pvp players are very skilled gamers. And the whole risk in eve In losing a ship. Most people do not risk more than a couple hundred million if that on pvp. Something you can make up for in 5 seconds by buying a plex. Or just a few hours of ratting.

Feel free to grind up the isk for this

I was one of those dreads... I didn't even get on a titan killmail, such a pity.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#186 - 2014-07-28 10:18:04 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
polly papercut wrote:
I play fighting games on a competitive level also have been ranked in bf 3 and 4. And I got a few friends in mlg. Those players are much more hard core gamers than most eve players.

Tell us more about how shooting someone in the face in battlefield is "more hardcore" than organizing thousands of people into fleets and providing the logistics, funding and tactics for a campaign lasting months.

so elitefps

Hey, what about trying dust, I'm sure you'll make quite an impact

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#187 - 2014-07-28 11:09:10 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
polly papercut wrote:
I play fighting games on a competitive level also have been ranked in bf 3 and 4. And I got a few friends in mlg. Those players are much more hard core gamers than most eve players.

Tell us more about how shooting someone in the face in battlefield is "more hardcore" than organizing thousands of people into fleets and providing the logistics, funding and tactics for a campaign lasting months.

so elitefps

Hey, what about trying dust, I'm sure you'll make quite an impact


Let me tell you about my mad skillz on planetside 2 and my shocking ability to turn into a screaming ball of flame.
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#188 - 2014-07-28 11:45:38 UTC
Kallen Kozukie wrote:

You are confusing game design intent, with how the player base uses the mechanics, the debate isn't about that, by design yes, null is meant to be more dangerous, but thats not how it turned out, such is the case with many things in eve.


Which is only achieved through the expenditure of greater effort. This whole arguement started by someone saying living in null wasn't risky and was effortless, yet every arguement that attempts to massage the obvious risk only explains how we do so by the effort we allegedly arent expending. You can't have it both ways. At its core, Nullsec is intrinsically more risky, and only through the expenditure of far more effort do we mitigate a measure of this. Which invalidates the effort arguement.
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#189 - 2014-07-28 11:50:14 UTC
polly papercut wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
Guys guys NullSec is safer than HiSec.

That's why the people who live there have to have intel channels, coalitions, and other security measures that people in HiSec don't.

Right and once you factor all that in it makes null relatively safe. You have to factor in all mechanics and factors and with the use of Intel and spies and comms and jabber null becomes a whole lot safer.
.

You are aware that intel channels aren't auto-reporting information from bots right? Jabber channels weren't provided to us by CCP? Players report intel on intel channels. If a player doesn't report it (or a player straight-up isn't there to see it), it doesn't go reported. That is a player expending their time and effort to assist in the security of others in the alliance. You can't claim that we expend no effort, when you point to our improved level of safety only existing because of player effort.
Ray Kyonhe
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#190 - 2014-07-28 13:39:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Ray Kyonhe
Peaceful Makbema wrote:

I used to be a loyalist, then you nerfed highsecs mission and LP value

On VERY rough estimations highsec PVE player can easly earn 2-5bils per month. Without taking any considerable risk if he doesn't do this in maradeur pimped with officer stuff. Nerfed, you said? How much do you want then?
Peaceful Makbema wrote:

I used to be a trader, then you chanced market rules

Just.. WAT?
Peaceful Makbema wrote:

I used to be an explorer, then you make the scanning/hacking harder

You gotta be kidding me. They simplified all this stuff to the level half-witted imbecil can easly scan and clear most hardest of nullsecs' relic/data site. It's so easy that there is no fun anymore, ppl just do it to earn some easy money in nulls.

Survey/voting system inbuilt to the game client: link_Reforming corp and taxation system: link_New PvE content (reward collective gameplay): link
Ray Kyonhe
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#191 - 2014-07-28 13:48:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Ray Kyonhe
baltec1 wrote:

Tell us more about how shooting someone in the face in battlefield is "more hardcore" than organizing thousands of people into fleets and providing the logistics, funding and tactics for a campaign lasting months.

Again "we've got emperors in Eve" rant. What you just described refers to very, very tiny fraction of the playerbase. 1%? 5%? The majority of players don't do anything great, just shooting crosses and squares(and prefer do last ones while having overwhelming firepower guaranting security of their own hides; and this shooting is - most of the times - is like "warp in grid, press a couple of keys, if it wasn't a bait get kill, if it was get lossmail"; most of the time only FC do something similar to hardcore playing), or press F1 in those massive battles organised by this tiny fraction of playerbase. There is nothing so hardcore about what most ppl do in Eve.

Survey/voting system inbuilt to the game client: link_Reforming corp and taxation system: link_New PvE content (reward collective gameplay): link
Prince Kobol
#192 - 2014-07-28 13:55:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Prince Kobol
baltec1 wrote:
Arcelian wrote:


I said, like, 4 pages back that null sec is made safer by player mitigation, and all things equal, solo pilot to solo pilot, yes, null sec is more risky. But that's not the way null sec actually, is, and hasn't been for a number of years.

Tippia, I've made my point very clear, I'm not going to split hairs with you. I don't have 23k likes, I don't live on these forums.

By definition, yes null sec is more risky than high sec, by many magnitudes.

I was arguing from the point of the average null dweller, that lives there today, who uses the tools available to him. You know, how null sec actually is.


So why does CCPs own numbers and graphs show that a lot more ships get blown up in null?

Hell in January we saw a single null system suffer more destruction in a day than all of highsec combined for the entire month.


Pretty simple really.

If you go of dotlan with the exception of a few alliances, the top 50 are all based in null sec and the vast majority of those alliances a member of CFC and N3

So if you have let say the 40 of the largest alliances in Eve split into 2 groups having "good fights" then of course there will be more ships being destroyed.

Having hundreds or even thousands of ships going boom in "good fights" does not equal dangerous. If those pilots never joined fleet then chances are they would never go boom themselves.

Yet this does not mean null sec is more dangerous. I spent approx 3 months flying in null sec solo on a alt and I mean solo, no scouts, no intel channels , no boosters.. just 1 single pilot doing data / relic and ghost sites and I didn't get shot at once.

In that 3 months the only time I had trouble was flying thought the low sec pipes leading into and out of null sec and a few HS systems were gankers operate.

Dangerous to me is never knowing what I might encounter when jumping into a new system. You know with null sec most of the time you will be encountered by either empty space or a few guys running anoms and ratting.
Gallowmere Rorschach
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#193 - 2014-07-28 14:01:43 UTC
Ray Kyonhe wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

Tell us more about how shooting someone in the face in battlefield is "more hardcore" than organizing thousands of people into fleets and providing the logistics, funding and tactics for a campaign lasting months.

Again "we've got emperors in Eve" rant. What you just described refers to very, very tiny fraction of the playerbase. 1%? 5%? The majority of players don't do anything great, just shooting crosses and squares(and prefer do last ones while having overwhelming firepower guaranting security of their own hides; and this shooting is - most of the times - is like "warp in grid, press a couple of keys, if it wasn't a bait get kill, if it was get lossmail"; most of the time only FC do something similar to hardcore playing), or press F1 in those massive battles organised by this tiny fraction of playerbase. There is nothing so hardcore about most ppl do in Eve.

In that regard, Eve shows a very strong resemblance to the real life balance of things. You'll never have an Eve full of leaders and planners, because there are so few in the real world anyway. That does not negate the massive effort of the few that is required for the cogs to get greased so that the machine doesn't seize.

And yes, in null I am but a cog. However, in high, there's nothing that my alts would gain from leaving npc corps to join player corps, other than the chance to be ripped off. If I were to take said alts to null, without having standings set with them from a bloc, there's no way in hell that I could do what I can do with them in high.
Gallowmere Rorschach
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#194 - 2014-07-28 14:05:58 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
You know with null sec most of the time you will be encountered by either empty space or a few guys running anoms and ratting.

And this is why almost everyone (bloc leadership included) believes that Dominion sov is ******* terrible, and needs to die a painful death.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#195 - 2014-07-28 14:11:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Prince Kobol wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Arcelian wrote:


I said, like, 4 pages back that null sec is made safer by player mitigation, and all things equal, solo pilot to solo pilot, yes, null sec is more risky. But that's not the way null sec actually, is, and hasn't been for a number of years.

Tippia, I've made my point very clear, I'm not going to split hairs with you. I don't have 23k likes, I don't live on these forums.

By definition, yes null sec is more risky than high sec, by many magnitudes.

I was arguing from the point of the average null dweller, that lives there today, who uses the tools available to him. You know, how null sec actually is.


So why does CCPs own numbers and graphs show that a lot more ships get blown up in null?

Hell in January we saw a single null system suffer more destruction in a day than all of highsec combined for the entire month.


Pretty simple really.

If you go of dotlan with the exception of a few alliances, the top 50 are all based in null sec and the vast majority of those alliances a member of CFC and N3

So if you have let say the 40 of the largest alliances in Eve split into 2 groups having "good fights" then of course there will be more ships being destroyed.

Having hundreds or even thousands of ships going boom in "good fights" does not equal dangerous. If those pilots never joined fleet then chances are they would never go boom themselves.

Yet this does not mean null sec is more dangerous. I spent approx 3 months flying in null sec solo on a alt and I mean solo, no scouts, no intel channels , no boosters.. just 1 single pilot doing data / relic and ghost sites and I didn't get shot at once.

In that 3 months the only time I had trouble was flying thought the low sec pipes leading into and out of null sec and a few HS systems were gankers operate.

Dangerous to me is never knowing what I might encounter when jumping into a new system. You know with null sec most of the time you will be encountered by either empty space or a few guys running anoms and ratting.


No one cares what you personal definition is. This is the definiton of danger:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/danger

Quote:

dan·ger
[deyn-jer] Show IPA
noun
1.
liability or exposure to harm or injury; risk; peril.
2.
an instance or cause of peril; menace.
3.
Obsolete . power; jurisdiction; domain.


Uncertainty isn't danger.

More ships die in pvp situations in null than anywhere else. In absolute terms, null is the most dangerous. Even in per capita terms, it's the 2nd most dangerous (behind wormholes). Under every logical, reasonable definition, High Sec is the safest place in EVE, it is the place where an individual player is least likely to have their ship exploded.

The other thing i want to mention is that it's foolish to suggest that Null sec is only dangerous because of 'gudfights' because there are only 2 super powers. Explain this then from a time when there was no real 'N3' grouping.

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/3235
Christina Project
Screaming Head in a Box.
#196 - 2014-07-28 14:35:50 UTC

When uncertainty is seen as danger ...
... protection turns into a necessity.



Really bad.

[i]"Don't look into another human's bowl to see how much he has ... ... look into his bowl to see if he has enough !" - Sol[/i]
Christina Project
Screaming Head in a Box.
#197 - 2014-07-28 14:42:50 UTC
Oh and I also want to remind everybody that nowadays ...
... seriously ...

Ignorance is seen as strength.

[i]"Don't look into another human's bowl to see how much he has ... ... look into his bowl to see if he has enough !" - Sol[/i]
Gallowmere Rorschach
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#198 - 2014-07-28 14:52:04 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

The other thing i want to mention is that it's foolish to suggest that Null sec is only dangerous because of 'gudfights' because there are only 2 super powers. Explain this then from a time when there was no real 'N3' grouping.

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/3235

Looking at that blog...highsec lost more ships than null...oh wait...dem PvE deaths. Clearly highsec missions are OP and need nerfed.

Do we have an updated set of information like this? I'd love to see if the numbers have tilted a bit since groups like CODE really came up, and that devblog also predates Burn Jita's annual stabfest.

I still expect null to be ahead, but maybe not by such a wide margin. Also wondering if losses to Concord where no player hit the offending ship would count as pve or pvp losses.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#199 - 2014-07-28 15:08:37 UTC
Gallowmere Rorschach wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

The other thing i want to mention is that it's foolish to suggest that Null sec is only dangerous because of 'gudfights' because there are only 2 super powers. Explain this then from a time when there was no real 'N3' grouping.

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/3235

Looking at that blog...highsec lost more ships than null...oh wait...dem PvE deaths. Clearly highsec missions are OP and need nerfed.

Do we have an updated set of information like this? I'd love to see if the numbers have tilted a bit since groups like CODE really came up, and that devblog also predates Burn Jita's annual stabfest.

I still expect null to be ahead, but maybe not by such a wide margin. Also wondering if losses to Concord where no player hit the offending ship would count as pve or pvp losses.


The funniest thing about that blog is that some hi sec partisans tried to use it as "see , more ships are killed in high sec!!". They didn't like it when someone pointed out that the total number was because of the free frigates the game gives to new players during the tutorial and that the most killed pve ship in high sec was the valueless CONDOR lol.

It was hilarious watching them dig themselves into an ever deeper hole of insanity.
Prince Kobol
#200 - 2014-07-28 15:41:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Prince Kobol
Jenn aSide wrote:


No one cares what you personal definition is.



Hmm.. this is a forum correct and about 99.9% of posts are people expressing their own opinions and interpretations including youself.

Your coming across quite butt hurt here which is very unlike you, maybe time for a break?

Jenn aSide wrote:


More ships die in pvp situations in null than anywhere else. In absolute terms, null is the most dangerous. Even in per capita terms, it's the 2nd most dangerous (behind wormholes). Under every logical, reasonable definition, High Sec is the safest place in EVE, it is the place where an individual player is least likely to have their ship exploded.

The other thing i want to mention is that it's foolish to suggest that Null sec is only dangerous because of 'gudfights' because there are only 2 super powers. Explain this then from a time when there was no real 'N3' grouping.

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/3235


A blog which is now nearly 3 years old.. is that the best you can do?

How about something a little more relevant.

Show me a large fleet battle that has occurred in null sec consisting at least 100 ships in the last 12 months that has not included anybody belonging to either CFC or N3.

As for the unknown not being dangerous, I disagree. If I know what I am going to face I can be prepared for it and take measures accordingly. If have no idea what I am going to face it makes much more difficult to take any preventative measure.